sense: 


0G. 


Neat.) \ 7 < . ‘i bi yas ‘ ‘ yt: 
q f A , beg < oa ; €' 
Stauton toi tisk Sisto. eae : | Bi ek ti eR Scan a 


‘e 
Memdethed 


USceeg 4 IRE, FFE 
Y wt 


rere 
sus 
p Rand 


Cg 


Rigen: 6 
Ge ne te 

poms bad Wiha ne asy 
ee 


i 3 
se ea 
Bip gn $ay OF. 


eee 


Ht b 3 : co esters, 
fat ‘ ree? Phe 
, . Mepoir 


225% 


ton Oe 


ie sexes 393 —5 
z 
« 
£ 
* 
al 
~~ 
: 
: 


#3 3 


sae tees FF 


ee 


fos tie + es 
a oats * 


GEORGE BUSH 


=a 
<— 
z 
is 
to 
a 
a 
aa 
a 
< 
O 
a 
wD 
or 
HH 
Ed 
ea 
bos 


GB fedora, 4 y a > r \ J k Ldh>-pod abt eas bate: 
Peg Veet y i 4 . . < +a 
J O46 . 

4 


) 


Spr: 


bare? 
dune 
Mert el Da 


1S) Mine) 


yy 


ow 


fae at Fe 


' 
973 FS Se ee ese? 


ea ae 


cy) 


v 


ANE R re OES KON oe 
, 
$532 38 
x 


beat: 


+ 


savepyme® 
at 


+ ie 
aed BBG 


fm ht ha 


os 
opeeeue 
29 rm 4 
bia tte 


vigce 


Set 


nto ee eee 


Bie tte. BOLS | 
Bush, George, 1796-1859. 


Letters to a trinitarian; 
or, The doctrine of the 


ts 
= Oe 


Ay 
Pita ¥ 
i We 


an 


; av 
We aa wad 
Aid 


ey Shae 
t Nak , ey 
; ‘ 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


https://archive.org/details/letterstotrinitaOObush ~ 


* 


LETTERS 


TO A 


PRINT TAR IA Nae 


OR, 


THE DOCTRINE OF THE 


TRIPERSONALITY OF JEHOVAH 


INCONSISTENT WITH THE 


TRUTH OF THE INCARNATION. 


YY 
BY GEORGE BUSH. 


—— 


BOSTON: 


PUBLISHED BY OTIS CLAPP, 23 SCHOOL STREET. 
NEW-YORK: LEWIS C. BUSH, 16 HOWARD STREET. 
LONDON : J. S. HODSON AND W. NEWBERY. 


1850. 


PREFACE. 


Tue ensuing series of Letters, with the exception of the one on Atonement, 
first made its appearance in successive Numbers of the “‘ New Church Repos- 
itory,” for 1848, conducted by the Author. They were addressed to a gentle- 
man of high literary and theological repute, though not a clergyman, and 
whose strong adherence to that form of doctrine known in the American 
churches as orthodox and evangelical, rendered him, to my mental eye, an 
impersonation of the peculiar aspect of the Trinitarian dogma with which I 
would contrast the teachings of the New Church. The ideal presence with me, 
of the established system thus represented, has, in every stage of the discussion, 
probably given complexion to the tone of my arguments. But! trust, notwith- 
standing, that the Unitarian also may find, in the ensuing pages, a presentation 
of views that he will not turn from under a sinister impression founded on their 
advocacy of the doctrine of the supreme divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. He 
will here find the doctrine set forth under entirely new aspects and relations, 
and arraying itself in equally strong antagonism with the Trinity which he re- 
jects and the Unity which he defends. 

If the Author has written at all in the spirit of the system which he has 
espoused and would fain commend to the attention of his fellow-Christians, 
he cannot well have made himself liable to the charge of an illiberal, uncour- 
teous, or indecorous mode of conducting an inquiry upon a very important 
department of revealed truth. 

He has only to ask of those who may condescend to notice the work, that 
they will not consider the argument of the Letters refuted simply by dispa- 
raging flings at the alleged visionary claims of Swedenborg. I could not 
well sink lower in the esteem of others than I should in my own, did I deem 
myself capable of giving credence or currency to a system of religious doc- 
trines that relied mainly upon anything else than 7ts own intrinsic evidence of 
truth, albeit I may not be willing to admit that this truth could have been dis- 
covered unless it had been previously revealed. 

New-York, Jan. 1, 1850. 


a eek 

5 ina ke 
Ey rae Secret Fore PX, 
Hees AEE 


3, 
a 


APY : Ty Gr Oba RES, } 
fC on gtt rf 3 43: ar eye Hob a re 


‘ea, 
' 


Pai 
ry 


LNG ain 


ws ih wage 3 ‘ 
f Aik ( Vee, + ' 


oes 


he 
” 


j ie 
viv) ee 
ie ate ahaa 
rs ig BD 
nt BT) re 
a 2) 4 


et 
CONTENTS. 

é; Pacr. 
Letter I.—Tue Ancen JenHovaH, . 7 : . : : 7 
Letter [1.—Tur Aneen Jenovan, . ‘ : ‘ ‘ au L4 
Letter Ill.—Tue Divine Humanity, P 7 “ - We 
Letter 1V.—Tue Divine Humanity, . . . . . ayia 
Letter V.—JrHovanH-JEsus, ‘ . ‘ . ‘ Bar 
Letter VI.—Jrnovan-Jesus, - ; : a : «iy sO 
Letter VIJ.—Tue Incarnation, ; : é g ‘ a GS 
Letter VIIJ.—Tue Incarnation, . ; : . , eae 
Letter [X.—Tue GuoriFIcaTION, . : , : , OU 
LetrerR X.—THE GLORIFICATION, . 7 ‘ . . - A 99 
Lerter XI.—THE ATONEMENT, , ‘ . é ; ey SLO 
Letter XII.—Practicat Resv.ts, . : : ? ; gael 20 


Letrer XIIJ.—Practican Resurts, —" . . ; : aloo 


LETTERS TO A TRINITARIAN. 


LETTER I. 


THE ANGEL JEHOVAH. 


DEAR SIR, 
Ivy our frequent conversations upon the distinguishing features of 


Swedenborg’s Theology, you have more than once intimated your 
objections to his doctrine of the Divine Trinity as being really sub- 
versive of the true tenet, while yet holding forth a show of sustaining 
and confirming it. The position so distinctly and emphatically main- 
tained throughout his writings, that the Jesus of the New Testament 
is the Jehovah of the Old, and that in Him is concentrated the only Trin- 
ity we are taught to recognise in either, strikes you as so inconsistent 
with what you have been led to believe in regard to the Tripersonal 
distinction, in which Christ holds the second rank, that you are 
prompted to an instant rejection of the entire scheme, and scruple not. 
to affirm that if reduced to the alternative of giving up either the 
personal Trinity or the absolute Unity, you should feel compelled to 
resign the latter. This is doubtless more than most Trinitarians 
would be willing to say, notwithstanding their firm assurance that a 
threefold distinction of persons is unequivocally taught in the pages 
of Revelation. They have never yet, I believe, intimated that they con- 
sidered the doctrine of the Tripersonality more clearly taught by the 
sacred writers than that of the Unipersonality. Your views on this 
head are probably peculiar to yourself. But in what I propose to 
offer on the general subject I shall take no advantage of this ultraism 
of position. I shall address you and aim to reason with you as occu- 
pying simply the ordinary Trinitarian ground—that is, as admitting 
that Jesus Christ is in some sense possessed of divine attributes, while 
at the same time he is, as divine, the second person of the adorable 
Trinity, in which character he assumed our nature, and accomplished 
the work of redemption on our behalf. 

In the ensuing series of letters I propose to canvass the general 
theme of the Supreme Deity of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, 
with a special reference to the established views of Trinitarians on 
that subject, and by a course of argument founded primarily upon 
the Old Testament Scriptures. In the prosecution of my purpose, | 
have the satisfaction of knowing that we shall agree as to the au- 
thority appealed to. In a controversy with a Unitarian I fear I could 


‘i. 


8 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter I. x“ 


not promise myself this advantage, as I perceive in the leading wri- 
ters of that class a striking backwardness, to say the least, to abide 
by the testimony of the Old Testament in respect to the central doc- 
trine of our Lord’s divinity. They evidently regard this portion of 
the Scriptures as a mass of ancient historical documents, venerable 
indeed by age, but embodying merely the statements and sentiments 
of fallible men, who have chronicled facts and given utterance to 
poetry, prophecy, and parable under the promptings of a certain re- 
ligious fervor, which at the same time falls immeasurably short of any 
thing that can be properly called an infallible divine ispiration. 
With the advocates of this opinion it would of course be impossible to 
enter upon such a discussion as I now propose, without a long pre- 
liminary debate upon the claims of the old Testament Scriptures to 
a character of equal authority, as a standard of doctrine, with that 
of the New. But all this, in the present instance, I am happily 
spared. I require no concession on this head but such as you are 
prepared at once to make. I shall, however, venture to hope that if 
the eye of any candid Unitarian shall fall upon these pages, he will be 
somewhat arrested and impressed by an array of evidence drawn 
from this source, on the main position, of which perhaps he was but - 
little aware, and the force of which, I trust, may not be diminished to 
his mind by any air of novelty in the form of its presentation. I trust, 
too, that he will at least be ready to admit that on the ground which 
we assume, of the inspired character of the Law and the Prophets, 
our grand conclusion is one that is not easily resisted. For the proof 
of our postulate, we refer him to the various writers on the canon 
who have treated it in all its bearings. 7 
To one who has been so familiar as I have long known you to be 
with the original languages of the Scriptures, it must often have oc- 
curred as a query, what could be really intended by the remarkable 
phrase, min qwbn, Malak Yehovah, or, Angel of the Lord, so frequently 
met with in the Pentateuch and the subsequent books. Who was the 
true personage intended by that appellation? Was it the veritable 
Jehovah himself who was thus indicated, and if so, whence or why 
the denomination? If it were a created angel, what relation does he 
sustain to Jehovah, and on what ground does he speak in His name 
and claim for himself His attributes? This isa feature of the sacred 
record too prominent not to have attracted the notice of commenta- 
tors in all ages, and yet scarcely any one, I think, can fail to have 
been struck with the vague and vacillating air of their expositions. 
It has formed a problem that has defied their solution, Yet nothing 
is of more importance than to ascertain the grounds of this denomina- 
tion. If it has any bearing at all on the grand question at issue, it is 
of an import the most momentous, as its relations are ramified, to a 
vast extent, over the whole compass of revelation ; and, if | mistake 
not, it will appear that no adequate view can be obtained from the 
New Testament of the true character of Christ, which involves an 
omission of the testimony gathered from the earlier Jewish oracles. 
No other satisfactory clew, 1am persuaded, can be obtained to the 


a 
Pt te 
x The Angel Jehovah. 9 
leading titles applied to our Lord by the Evangelists and Apostles. 
But the evidence of this remains to be adduced. 
It is my intention, in the sequel of the discussion, to adduce from 
Swedenborg the true, and, as I believe, the only true solution of the 
problem involved in this remarkable form of speech, but my:present 
object is to exhibit distinctly the usage itself as a basis for the final in- 
duction. To this end it will be requisite to accumulate ample proof 
that the title “ Angel of the Lord” is applied in some sense to the 
Lord himself, or, in other words, that the terms are used interchange- 
ably. Should the citations appear rather copious, the object in view 
will account for it. A great step is taken towards the main conclu- 
sion when the fact is established that Jehovah is called an angel. 


“And the Angel of the Lord fond her (Hagar) by a fountain of water in the 
wilderness, by the fountain inthe way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s 
maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee 
from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the Angel of the Lord (Jehovah) said un- 
to her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the 
Angel of the Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it 
shall not be numbered for multitude. Andthe Angel of the Lord said unto her, 
Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ish- 
mael; because the Lorp hath heard thy affliction. And he will bea wild 
man; his hand will be against every man, andevery man’s hand against him ; 
and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. And she called the 
name of the Lorp (Jehovah) that spake unto her, Thou God seest me: for she 
said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me ?’—Gen. xvi. 7-13. 


As the Angel here mentioned is called by Hagar, “ Lord” (Heb. 
Jehovah), and as he addresses her in a style befitting only the Most 
High, promising to perform what He alone could do, and foretelling 
what He alone could know, the inference is not only fair, but inevita- 
ble, that an identity of some kind subsisted between Jehovah and 
the Angel. The precise nature of this relation will be clearly devel- 
oped by and by. 


“And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. 
And the Angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, 
Abraham. And he said, HereamI. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon 
the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest 
God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me. . . . 
And the Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 
and said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done 
this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing | 
will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the 
heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore ; and thy seed shall pos- 
sess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
beblessed ; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”—Gen. xxii. 10-12, 15-18. 


Here also it is obvious that the angel predicates of himself what 
can only strictly pertain to the supreme Jehovah. This is abundant- 
ly confirmed by Paul (Heb. vi. 13, 14), “For when God made prom- 
ise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by 
himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I 
will multiply thee.” If the angel sware by himself, and could swear by 


Ss 


o al 
10 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter I. 


no greater, there must surely be some sense in which the angel is 
Jehovah. He is besides expressly called “God” by the Apostle. 


“ And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with 
the princes of Moab. And God’s anger was kindled because he went: and 
the Angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now 
he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. And the 
ass saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his 
hand: and the-ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field : and 
Balaam smote the ass, toturn her into the way. But the Angel of the Lord stood 
in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. 
And when the ass saw the Angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall, 
and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall: and he smote her again. And 
the Angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no 
way to turn either to the right hand or to the left. And when the ass saw the 
Angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam; and Balaam’s anger was 
kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff"—Num. xxii. 21-27. 


This Angel is mentioned repeatedly in the subsequent verses, and 
in ver. 32-35 it is said— "i 


“And the Angel of the Lord said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten 
thine ass these three times? Behold, I went out to withstand thee, because 
thy way is perverse before me: and the ass saw me, and turned from me these 
three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, 
and saved her alive. And Balaam said unto the Angel of the Lord, I have 
sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now there- 
fore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again. And the Angel of the Lord 
said unto Balaam, Go with the men: but only the word that I shall speak unto 
thee, that thou shalt speak.” 


It is then the Angel of the Lord who speaks to Balaam, and dic- 
tates what he is to say to Balak. Yet it is clear that he regarded 
him as the Lord himself, for he says to the king of Moab, “ The word 
that God putteth in my mouth, that shall I speak.” Moreover, it is 
expressly said (ch. xxiii. 5), “ And the Lord put a word in Balaam’s 
mouth, and said, Return unto Balak, and thus shalt thou speak.” So, 
also, ver. 16, “And the Lord met Balaam, and put a word in his 
mouth, and said,” &c. The evidence, therefore, would seem to be 
decisive, that the titles, “ Angel of the Lord,” and “ Lord,” are here: 
_used as equivalent. 


“And an Angel (or, the Angel) of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, 
and said, l made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the 
land which I sware unto your fathers; andI said, I will never break my cov- 
enant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this 
land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: 
why have ye done this? Wherefore L also said, I will not drive them out from 


before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be 
a snare unto you.”—Judg. ii. 1. 


It was surely no other than Jehovah who brought the Israelites out 
of Egypt, who made a covenant with them, and to whom they were 
accountable for disobedience. These are acts and relations which 
could not be predicated of any creature. The Angel of the Lord 


be 
The Angel Jehovah. - 11 


must here denote the Lord himself. As to the circumstance of his be- 
ing said to “ come up from Gilgal,” it is probably in allusion to the fact 
that in Gilgal near to Jericho this divine personage had recently ap- 
peared to Joshua asan armed warrior. That he was Jehovah cannot 
be doubted, because he suffered Joshua to worship him, and even com- 
manded him to put off his shoes from his feet, inasmuch as the ground 
on which he stood was, by reason of his presence, holy. The evi- 
dence is cumulative of the truth of this construction. 


“ And there came an Angel of the Lord, and sat under an oak which was in 
Ophrah, that pertained unto Joash the Abi-ezrite : and his son Gideon threshed 
wheat by the wine-press to hide it from the Midianites. And the Angel of the 
Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou 
mighty man of valor. And Gideon said unto him, O my Lord, if the Lord be 
with us, why then is all this befallen us ? and where be all his miracles which 
our fathers told us of, saying, Did not the Lord bring us up from Egypt? but 
now the Lord hath forsaken us, and delivered us into thé hands of the Midian- 
ites. And the Lord looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and 
thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites : have not | sent thee ? 
And he said unto him, O my Lord, wherewith shall I save Israel? behold my 
family is poor in Manasseh, and Iam the least in my father’s house. And the 
Lord said unto him, Surely I will be with thee, and thou shalt smite the Midia- 
nites as one man. And he said unto him, If now I have found grace in thy 
sight, then show me a sign that thou talkest with me. Depart not hence, [ 


‘pray thee, until] I come unto thee, and bring forth my present, and set it before 


thee. And he said, I will tarry until thou come again. And Gideon went in, 
and made ready a kid, and unleavened cakes of an ephah of flour: the flesh 
he put ina basket, and he put the broth in a pot, and brought it out unto him 
under the oak, and presented it. And the Angel of God said unto him, 
Take the flesh and the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock, and 
pour out the broth. -And hedid so. And when Gideon perceived that he was 
an Angel of the Lord, Gideon said, Alas, O Lord God! for because I have seen 
an Angel of the Lord face to face. And the Lord said unto him, Peace be unto 
thee: fearnot: thou shalt not die. Then Gideon built an altar there unto the 
Lord, and called it Jehovah-Shalom ; unto this day it is yet in Ophrah of the 
Abi-ezrites.”—Judges vi. 11-24. 


The language here employed leaves no room for doubt as to our 
main position. The “ Angel of the Lord,” called also, v. 20, the “ An- 
gel of God,” is all along addressed by Gideon as the Lord (Jehovah), 
and in v. 14 is expressly called so. In v. 22 the more appropriate 
rendering would be, “ When Gideon perceived that he was the Angel 
of the Lord,” as the form of the expression in the original is precise- 
ly the same here as throughout the Pentateuch and the Prophets. 
There is therefore no ground for the wavering of our version between 
“an Angel” and “the Angel.” It would have been altogether prefer- 
able to have adopted the uniform rendering “the Angel of the Lord.” 


In Judges xiii. 8-23, we have an account of a remarkable inter- 
view between “the Angel of the Lord” and Manoah and his wife, the 
parents of Samson. In the outset of the narrative he is termed “a 
man of God,” a designation which he himself acknowledges, v. 1], 
but this is dropped in the sequel, and that of “ Angel” alone employ- 
ed. After reciting his answer to their interrogatories the story pro- , 
ceeds: | 


12 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letier re 


“And Manoah said unto the Angel of the Lord, I pray thee, let us detain 
thee until we shall have made ready a kid for thee. And the Angel of the 
Lord said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread : 
and if thou wilt offer a burnt-offering, thou must offer it unto the Lord. For 
Manoah knew not that he was an Angel of the Lord. And Manoah said unto 
the Angel of the Lord, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass 
we may do thee honor? And the Angel of the Lord said unto him, Why askest 
thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? So Manoah took a kid, with a 
meat-offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the Lord; and the Angel did 
wondrously, and Manoah and his wife looked on. For it came to pass, when 
the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the Angel of the Lord 
ascended in the flame of the altar, and Manoah and his wife looked on it and 
fell on their faces to the ground. But the Angel of the Lord did no more appear 
to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an Angel of the 
Lord. And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have 
seen God.”—Judges xiii. 8-23. 


The words of the Angel to Manoah, “ Why askest thou thus after 
my name, seeing if is secret,” have the air of a rebuke for putting 
the question alluded to. But what offence could attach to a respect- 
ful and reverential interrogation of this kind? Why was the mere 
secresy of the name a reason for its not being asked. Was it not 
rather the reason why he did ask it?) We admit, indeed, that if Ma- 
noah had been previously informed that the name was ineffable—that 
it was designed to be kept a profound secret—he would have been 
cuilty of high presumption in demanding it. But we see no evidence 
of this in any part of the sacred text, and conclude therefore that the 
Angel made use of this interrogative form of speech merely in order 
to introduce, in the most suitable and impressive manner, the declara- 
tion that follows, constituting the real point of his reply: “It is se- 
cret ;”—or rather, as in the margin, “It is wonderful,” for so the original 
(-xbb, pelai) properly implies, and so it is expressly rendered, Is. ix. 6 
“His name shall be called Wonderful ( x5, pela)”; i. e. his nature, 
his character shall be wonderful ; properly implying that kind of won- 
der which is the natural effect of mzracles, of marvellous and super- 
human works.* In apparently declining therefore to reveal his name 
he does in fact make known one of his most august and glorious ti- 
tles, one which went far towards conveying an idea of the divine 
attributes of his nature, and one which was therefore eminently ap- 
propriate to the drift of Manoah’s question. The implication probably 
is, “You have scarcely occasion to inquire as to my name (nature) ; 
for it is obvious from the words, promises, and actions already wit- 
nessed and yet further to be displayed, that [. am, and am therefore to 
be called, Pela, the Admirable One, the great Worker of Wonders, 


*There is some slight variation, among commentators in the mode of rendering this 
term. Michaelis, Dathe, Boothroyd, and others follow our English version. Le Céne has 
it must remain secret ; the Genevese of 1805, it is sublime. De Wette has wunderbar, which 
does not differ from Luther’s wundersam, wondros, admirable. Michaelis remarks upon’ 
the original, that *‘it includes all these significations—unknown, secret, enigmatical, myste- 
rious, wonderful. Manoah probably understood it thus,—his name remains secret, he will 
mot tell it, but is determined to remain unknown. But in fact, it carries a further meaning ; 
his name is so mysterious that men cannot perfectly understand tt ; it 1s unspeakable, that is, 
he # God, whose nature and perfections surpass the comprehension of mortals.’—Anmerk, 
an toc, 


The Angel Jehovah. 13 


the Master of Miracles.” The original (-x>», pelai) has the form of a 
proper name, but the force of an appellative. Whether Manoah fully 
understood its entire import is perhaps to be doubted ; but whether he 
did or not, the declaration is to us, considered in one point of view, 
immensely important; for by assuming a title which unquestionably 
belongs to the promised Messiah, he identifies himself with that divine 
personage, and consequently puts it beyond a doubt who it is that 
is meant by the term “ Angel” or “ Angel of the Lord,” so frequently 
occurring in the Old Testament Scriptures, in connection with miracu- 
lous appearances and revelations. 

In v. 19 it is said that “Manoah took a kid, with a meat-offer- 
ing, and offered it upon a rock unto the Lord, and the angel did 
wondrously.” As the words “the angel,” are supplied by the trans- 
lators, not being found in the original, and as “Lord” is the next 
immediately preceding subject, it might be as properly rendered, “and 
he (the Lord) did wundrously.” The Heb. term for “did wondrously” 
is 8"2572, maphlia, from the same root with xd», pela, occurring above 
The term, therefore, corresponds with the name which he had before 
attributed to himself. Being wonderful, he put forth a wonderful 
manifestation. 

The following passage from the prophet Isaiah presents us with 
another marked instance of parallel allusion: 


“T will mention the loving-kindnesses of the Lorn, and the praises of the 
Lorp, according ta all that the Lorp hath bestowed on us, and the great good- 
ness toward the house of Israel, which he hath bestowed on them according 
to his mercies, and according to the multitude of his loving kindnesses. For 
he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their 
Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the Aagel of his presence 
saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them, and he bare them 
and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his Holy 
Spirit: therefore he was turned to-be their enemy, and he fought against them.” 
—I. xiii. 7-10. 


The personage here denominated the “ Angel of his presence” is be- 
yond all question the same with him who is frequently mentioned as 
having conducted the children of Israel through the wilderness, and 
as having often interposed to deliver and save them. We have given 
the above extract in full, as it contains a not very obscure allusion to 
the threefold phasis of the divine nature, indicated by the titles Jeho- 
vah, Angel of the Presence, and Holy Spirit, which are still one. 

On bringing together the principal features in these remarkable 
citations, we find that the personage described claims an uncontrolled 
sovereignty over the affairs of man ;—that he has the attribute of 
emniscience and omnipresence ;~-that he performs works to which 
omnipotence only is competent ;—that he uses the sacred formula 
peculiar to Jehovah; he swears py Himse.r -—-that he is the gra- 
_ cious Protector and Saviour, the Redeemer from evil, and the Author 
of the most desirable blessings ;—that his favor is to be sought with 
the deepest solicitude ;—that he is the object of religious invocation ; 
—that he is in the most express manner, and repeatedly, declared to 
be Jenovan, Gop, the ineffable I am raat I am;—-—-and yet that notwith- 


14 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter Ws 


standing all this, the mysterious Being in question is represented as, 
in some sense, distinct from the Lord himself and acting, as the term 
Angel imports, under some kind of divine mission. 

What then is the inference from all this? Are there two Jeho- 
vahs? Reason and revelation at onve reclaim against such a con- 
clusion, and some solution must be-found which shall recognize the 
distinction and still preserve the identity. Sucha solution we believe 
to be afforded in the theological developments of Swedenborg, and 
upon this branch of our subject we shall enter in the sequel, which 


will disclose results of great importance. 
Yours, &c. 


LETTER Il. 


THE ANGEL JEHOVAH. 


DEAR SIR, 

In my former letter, the evidence was somewhat largely adduced 
of the fact of a remarkable usage by the sacred writers in regard to 
the term Angel, 10 connections where, at the same time, the real per- 
sonage would still seem to have been Jehovah himself, as the predi- 
cates apply to him rather than to any created being. The Angel 
speaks in a style which ‘3 at once perceived to be appropriate to the 
Lord of Angels only. This is pre-eminently the case in a passage 
which was not cited in my former communication ; | allude to the 
recorded divine appearance to Moses at the burning bush. 


«“ Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: 
and he led the flock to the back side of the desert, and came to the mountain 
of God, even to Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him ina 
flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush 
burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will 
now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. And 
when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of 
the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses! And he said, Here am y 
And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet ; for 
the place whereon thou standest is holy ground. Moreover he said, [ am the 
God of thy father, the God of Abrahain, the God of Isaac, and the God of Ja- 
cob. And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to Jook upon God.”—Exod. 
iii, 1-6. 

Throughout the entire narrative it is plain that it is Jehovah him- 
self who speaks in the person of the Angel, for he says, V. 6, “lam 
the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and 
the God of Jacob ;” and Moses 1S said to have hidden his face, be- 
cause “ he was afraid to look upon God.” Again, when Moses inquired 


what answer he should return to his people, when they demanded of 


him in whose name he came to them— 


The Angel Jehovah. 15 


“God said unto Moses, I AM THATIAM: And he said, Thus shalt thou 
Say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said 
moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The 
Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God 
of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my 
memorial unto all generations.”—y. 14, 15. 


This, be it observed, is spoken by Him who is called in the outset 
the “ Angel of the Lord,” for the same original term translated “ ap- 
peared” is applied to each. We have seen, v. 2, that the Angel is 
said to have “ appeared” to Moses, and in the ensuing context it is 
said— 


“Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The Lord God 
of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto 
me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in 
Egypt.”—v. 16. 


Nothing can be more unequivocal than this. The Angel that made 
himself manifest in the burning bush is expressly declared to be 
“the Lord God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” and if this title 
do not designate the supreme Jehovah, we may well despair of find- 
ing any such title in the entire compass of Revelation. The momen- 
tous inferences that follow from this, will appear in due time; but at 
present I would offer a remark upon the nature of the appearance 
here predicated of the personage spoken of, and the remark will hold 
good in general of the divine and angelic theophanies or manifesta- 
tions so frequently mentioned in the Scriptures. The phraseology 
doubtless implies a visibility of some kind, and, judging from the sim- 
ple letter, we should probably suppose that the function merely of the 
natural or outward eye was involved in the seeing affirmed of the 
Spectator. If the Lord appeared to Moses or the patriarchs, the 
Spontaneous impression would be, that they saw him, and that they 
saw him just as they would have seen any other object that came 
within the range of their ocular vision. But our Saviour declares, 
in language that would seem incapable of mistake, that “no man 
hath seen God at any time ;” and the Most High himself is equally 
explicit in his reply to Moses on a subsequent occasion, “ there shall 
no man see me, and live.” You are moreover well aware of the 
prevalent belief among the Jews, that the sight of the Divine Being 
would be followed by the instant extinction of life. Here, then, we 
have a problem to be solved, in the apparent conflict of two classes 
of texts, one of which affirms the visibility of Jehovah, and the other 
denies it. How shall we reconcile them? Does Moses utter the 
truth when he affirms of himself, of Aaron, of N adab, and Abihu, and 
the seventy elders, that “they saw the God of Israel?” Does Isaiah 
declare the truth when he says, “ Woe is me, for mine eyes have seen 
the King, the Lord of Hosts?” And is it equally true, on the other 
_ hand, that “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and 
Lord of lords,” is He “whom no man hath seen or can see,” as the 
apostle Paul unequivocally affirms ? Surely some explanation is 
needed which shall relieve these passages of the air of direct contra- 


16 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter II. 


riety in their literal teachings. Whence is it to be sought?) Are we 
not inevitably shut up to the conclusion that the kind of seeing is not 
the same inthe case in which it is denied, as in that in which it is 
affirmed? Is not the predicated seeing in the one case that of the 
outward eye, and in the other that of the inward? How is it possi- 
ble that spiritual objects can be perceived by any other than a spirit- 
val eye? An angel is a spirit, and a spiritual organ only can behold 
a spiritual being. Of this, however, the beholder may not himself 
be conscious, as the outward and inward vision act in unity. When 
the servant of Elisha saw the mountain covered by horses and chariots 
of fire, it was not surely by the natural eye that he perceived them, 
for it is said that the Lord “opened his eyes” for the purpose, and no 
one can imagine that his outward eyes were previously closed. Yet I 
know of no reason to suppose that he was himself aware of seeing 
the spectacle by any other than the natural organs of vision. Still 
there was the opening of an inward eye, and the necessity for this 
which existed in his ease, exists in every similar case. No object 
can be seen by the material eye which does not reflect the rays of the 
sun’s light. But a spirit, being immaterial, cannot reflect these rays, 
and cannot therefore be seen by the operation of the ordinary laws 
of optics. It requires the couching, as it were, of the inward eye of. 
the spirit, in order to produce this effect. When. the women entered 
the vacated sepulchre of our Lord, on the morning of his resurrection, 
they at first saw nothing. A moment after, two angels in white 
stood before them. Why did they not see them on their first entrance ? 
Obviously for the reason, that their internal organs of vision were 
yet sealed. As soon as the spiritual eye had its film removed, the 
spectacle of the angels appeared. So in the case of the risen Sa- 
viour himself, and so in every case of angelic or divine apparition. 
The external human eye is not competent to the perception of spirit- 
ual beings or spiritual objects. | 

I would here, however, observe that when I speak of a spiritual 
mode of vision by which an angel is perceived, I refer only to the 
perception had of the angel, and not of the Lord by whom the angel 
is employed. Jehovah, as viewed in himself, is forever incapable of 
being seen by any created being, except so far as seetng coincides 
with knowing. He may be said to be seen in representatives by those 
who are brought into a state of spiritual vision, as were the ancient 
prophets, and so far as an angel represented the Lord, so far those 
who saw the Angel saw the Lord. 


* When man’s interior sight is opened, which is the sight of his spirit, then 
there appear the things of another life, which cannot possibly be made visible 
to the sight of the body. The visions of the prophets were nothing else. 
There are in heaven, as was said above, continual representatives of the Lord 
and of his kingdom; and there also significatives; insomuch that nothing at 
all exists before the sight of the angels, which is not representative and sig- 
nificative. Hence are the representatives and significatives in the Word; for 
the Word is through heaven from the Lord.”—A. C. 1619. 


It was then the spiritual ocular sense that beheld the Angel, but 
the Lord in the Angel was known, not seen. Throughout the Word ~ 


The Angel Jehovah. 17 


that species of seeing of which the Lord is the object is in fact of 
the same nature, psychologically viewed, with that intellectual per- 
ception which is understood by faith. 


“That the sense of sight corresponds to the affection of understanding and 
of being wise, is because the sight of the body altogether corresponds to the 
sight of its spirit, thus to the understanding. For there are two lights, one 
_ which is of the world from the sun, the other which is of heaven trom the 
Lord; in the light of the world there is nothing of intelligence, but in the light 
of heaven there is intelligence. Hence, so far as with man the things which 
are of the light of the world ‘are illumined by those which are of the light 
of heaven, so far the man understands and is wise;thus’ so far as they 
correspond. Because the sight of the eye corresponds to the understand - 
ing, therefore also. sight is attributed to the understanding and is called in- 
tellectual sight; also those things which man apperceives, are called the 
objects of that sight; and also in common speech it is said, that those 
things are seen when they are understood; and also light and _ illumina- 
tion, and thence clearness, are predicated of the understanding, and on the 
other hand, shade and darkness, and thence obscurity. These and similar 
things have come into use with man in speaking, from the fact that they cor- 
respond; for his spirit is in the light of heaven, and his body in the light of 
the world, and his spirit is what lives in the body, and also what thinks; 
hence, many things, which are interior, have thus fallen into vocal .ex pres- 
sions.”—A. C. 4405, 4406. 


On this head, I beg permission to introduce an extract from Swe- 
denborg, which will not, | think, be found to contain any thing that 
requires an apology on the score of overtasking a rational credence. 


‘‘ That seezng, in the internal sense, signifies faith from the Lord, is manifest 
from numberless passages in the Word, of which we shall adduce the follow- 
ing. Ezek. xii. 2, ‘Son of man, Thou dwellest in the midst of a house of re- 
bellion, who have eyes to see, but do not see, who have ears to hear, and do not 
hear.’ Having eyes to see but. not seeing, signifies that they were able to un- 
derstand the truths of faith, but were not willing, and this by reason of evils, 
which are the house of rebellion, inducing a deceitful light on falses, aud 
darkness on truths. In Matthew, ‘Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shal! 
see God,’ v. 8; where it is evident that to see God is to believe in Him, thus to 
see Him by faith, for they who are in faith, by faith see God, for God is in 
faith, and in that which constitutes true faith. Again, ‘Blessed are your 
eyes, because they see, and your ears because they hear: Verily I say unto 
you, that many prophets and righteous men have desired to see the things which 
ye see, but have not seen them, xii. 13 to 17; John xii. 40. To see is to know 
and understand the things relating to faith in the Lord, thus it denotes faith ; 
for they were not blessed because they saw the Lord, and saw His miracles, 
but because they believed, as may appear from these words in John, ‘1 said 
unto you, that ye also have seen Me, and ‘believed not: This is the will of Him 
Who sent Me, that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, should 
have eternal life; not that any one hath seen the Father, except He Who is with 
the Father, He hath seen the Father ; verily, verily, | say unto you, whosoever 
believeth on Me hath eternal life, vi. 36, 40, 46,47. To see and not to believe 
is to know the truths of faith and not to receive them; to see and to believe 
is to know and to receive; no one having seen the Father except He Who is 
with the Father, denotes that Divine Good cannot be acknowledged except by 
Divine Truth. Hence the internal sense is, that no one can have heavenly 
good, unless he acknowledge the Lord. In like manner in the same evange- 
jist, ‘ No one hath seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, Who is in the bo- 
som of the Father, He hath made Him manifest,’ i. 18. And again, Jesus said, 
‘ Whoso seeth Me, seeth Hin Who sent Me; [ am come a light into the world, 


2 


18. Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter II. 


\ 


that whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in darkness,’ xii. 45, 46; where 
it is said plainly, that to see is to believe or to have faith. Again, ‘Jesus said, 
If ye have known Me, ye have known My Father also, and from henceforth 
ye have known Him and have seen Him ; whoso hath seen Me, hath seen the Fa- 
ther, xiv. 7,9. Again, ‘The world cannot receive the Sport of Truth, because 
it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him: I will not leave you orphans, I come 
to you, yet a little while and the world shall see no more, but ye shall see Me, be- 
cause lL live ye shall live also, xiv. 17, 18, 19; where to see denotes to have 
‘faith, for the Lord is seen only by faith, for faith is the eye of love, the Lord 
being seen of love by faith, and love is the life of faith, wherefore it is said, 
‘Ye shall see me; because I live, ye shall live also” Again, ‘I say unto you, 
there be some of those standing here, who shall not taste death, until they shall 
see the kingdom of God, ix.27; Mark ix.1: to see the kingdom of God denotes 
to believe. From these and other passages it is evident, that to see, in the 
internal sense, denotes faith from the Lord, for there is no other faith, whith is 
faith, but what comes from the Lord: this also enables man to see, that is, to 
believe; but faith from self, or from man’s proprium, is not faith, for it causes 
him to sce falses as truths, and truths as falses, and if he sees truths as 
truths, still he does not see, because he does not believe, for he sees himself 
in them, and not the Lord. That to see is to have faith in the Lord, manifestly 
appears from what has been frequently said above concerning the light of 
heaven, namely, that being from the Lord it has with it intelligence and wis- 
~ dom, consequently faith in Him, for faith in the Lord is contained within intel- 
ligence and wisdom, wherefore to see from that light, as the angels do, can 
signify nothing else but faith in the Lord. The Lord Himself also is in that 
light, because it proceeds from Him. It is this light also which shines bright 
in the consciences of those who have faith in the Lord, although man is igno- 
rant of it while he lives in the body, for the light of the world then obscures 
that light.,—A. C. 3863. 


This, you will observe, is proffered as a true solution of the mean- 
ing of the inspired Word wherever mention is made of seeing God. 
In this case the sight even of the interior or spiritual sense is merged 
in intellection.* But in regard to the representing Angel, he could 
be seen, but only by means of the eyes of the spirit. This discrimina- 
tion is important, and in view of what has been said we feel author- 
ized to assume the position, that in no recorded instance of theophany 
or angelophany was the appearance made to the outward eye, but in- 
variably toan interior or spiritual vision preternaturally developed for 
the occasion. 

In the exposition of that part of the Mosaic history which relates 
to the vision granted to Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the 

elders of Israel, in which it is said that “they saw the God of Israel, 

and there was under his feet as it were a hand work of a sapphire 
stone, and the body of heaven in his clearness,” Swedenborg remarks 
that they were then permitted to behold the heavenly patterns or 
representative types of the various holy things of the Jewish wor- 
ship, and in regard to the mode of the vision with which they were 
then favored, he gives us the following information : 


— 


* << Hath appeared to me”—that it signifies presence, is manifest from the signification of 
appearing -to any one, as denoting presence; for by appearing or being seen, in the in- 
ternal sense, is not signified being seen by the eyes, but by the thought; thought itself causes 
presence, for the person thought of appears as if present before the internal sight. Inthe 
other life this is actually the case, for when any one is there thought of intensely, he is pre- 
sented to view.” —A, C. 6893. 


ro 


The Angel Jehovah. 19 


* Such things cannot be seen by the eyes of man, whilst he is in the world, 
for those eyes are formed to apprehend terrestrial and corporeal things, thus 
‘things material. They are therefore so gross, that they cannot even appre- 
hend by vision the interior things of nature, as may be sufficiently manifest 
from the optical glasses, with which they must be armed, in order to see those 
things only: which are proximately of interior nature. In a word, they are 
most dull, and being of such a quality, the representatives which appear to 
spirits in the other life, cannot be at all seen by them; but if those represen- 
tatives must appear, the lumen of the world must be taken away from the 
eyes, in which case the things which are in the light of heaven are seen; for 
there is a light of heaven, and there is a light of the world ; the light of heaven 
is for the spirit of man, and the light of the world for his body; and the case 
herein is this: Those things which are in the light of heaven are in thick 
darkness, so long as man sees from the light of the world; and vice versa, those 
things which are in the light of the world are in thick darkness, when man 
sees from the light of heaven. Hence it is, that when the light of the world is 
taken away from the sight of the corporeal eye, the eyes of man’s spirit are 
then opened, and those things are seen which are in the light of heaven, thus 
the representative forms, as was said above. From these considerations it 
may be known, whence it is that man at this day is in thick darkness concern- 
ing heavenly things, and some in darkness so great, that they do not even believe 
that life after death is given, thus they do not believe that themselves are to 
live for ever. For man at this day is so much immersed in the body, thus in 
things corporeal, terrestrial and worldly, and hence in so gross a light of the 
world, that heavenly things are altogether thick darkness to him, and there- 
fore the sight of his spirit cannot be enlightened. From these considerations 
it is now evident, that the eyes of the spirit were those, with which Moses 


_ saw the form of the tent in Mount Sinai.”—A. C. 9577. 


Such then is the nature of the vision by which spiritual and hea- 
venly things are discerned, and as ‘angels are thus and no otherwise 
seen, so when the Lord appeared under the angelic form, he was 
“seen as other angels are seen, by the eye of the spirit and not by the 
-eye of the body. 

The only other hypothesis is that of the miraculous assumption, 
for the time, of a material body; that is to say, that the angel ceases 
pro tem. to be au angel and becomes a man—a supposition implying 
an infraction of divine order so gross and revolting to our conceptions 
‘that we cannot entertain it fora moment. If, moreover, a departure 
from the ordinary course of things is to be hypothecated at all, how 
much more reasonable to suppose that it should be in accordance 
with the laws of order than in opposition to them. Although it is_ 
true that the faculty of interior or spiritual vision is not enjoyed in 
the normal condition of man in the present life, yet every one has the 
innate capability of its development from the general laws of his being, 
since after death he comes into the immediate exercise of the power, 
by means of which he at once perceives spirits in their true nature. 
But the clothing a disembodied spirit with a material form is instan- 
taneously seen to involve a violation of the fixed order of things and 
to embarrass our conceptions beyond measure. And what is gained 
by it? A certain effect is to be produced—viz. the vision of an im- 
material being. ‘This effect, on the one hypothesis, is produced by a 
process which merely anticipates, for a little while, the operation of 
a universal law of our being, and, on the other, by the direct contra- 
vention of such a law. If then the resulting effect is in the two 


\ 


20 Letters to a Trinitarian.— Letter I. 


cases the same, which is the most probable supposition as to the mo- 
dus operandi? You can take your choice of the suppositions. For 
myself I hesitate not for a moment to adopt the idea of the opening 
of an interior, spiritual eye, which so acts in conjunction with the 
external, that the percipient is not aware but that his vision is alto- 
gether normal, and that he sees the angel as he sees any other object 
which addresses itself to his sense of sight.* 

Regarding it then as a point established that the appearances of 
the angel mentioned were in no case made to the outward organ of 
vision, I proceed to the consideration of the legitimate inferences — 
yielded by the general subject. A solution is to be sought of the 
grounds on which the titles “J ehovah” and “ Angel of Jehovah” are 
interchangeably employed in the sacred record—a fact of which no 
possible doubt can remain after the abundant testimony I have ad- 
duced. This solution I give in the language of Swedenborg. That 
he professes to have come to the knowledge of the truth on this head 
in consequence of a special illumination, is certain. At the same 
time, this is not the point to which your assent is, in the outset, de- 
manded. I leave you at full liberty to enjoy your own opinion on 
this score. The question submitted to your decision is, whether what 
he affirms does not approve itself as intrinsically true, independent 
of the medium through which he declares it to have been received. 
Upon this you are competent to pronounce, If you find it to stand the 
test of your severest judgment, and yet is such a view of the subject 
as was never before announced to the world, and such as cannot well 
be accounted for on any other supposition than that of its being the 
product of a special divine enlightenment, I do not see that you can 
refuse to admit his claim as so far made good. But of this I leave 
you to judge. I wish nothing to be forced upon you but what forces 
itself. 


“The Angel of Jehovah is sometimes mentioned in the Word, and every- 
where, when in a good sense, represents and signifies some essential apper- 
taining to the Lord, and proceeding from him; but what is represented and 
signified may appear from the series. There were angels who were sent to 
men, and who also spake by the prophets, but what they spake was not from 
the angels, but by them: for their state then was, that they knew no other- 
wise than that they were Jehovah, that is, the Lord: nevertheless, when they 
had done speaking, they presently returned into their former state, and spake 
as from'themselves. This was the case with the angels who spake the Word 
of the Lord; which has been given me to know by much experience of a simi- 
lar kind at this day in the other life; concerning which, by the divine mercy 
of the Lord, we shall speak hereafter. This is the reason that the angels were 
sometimes called Jehovah; as was evidently the case with the angel who ap- 
peared to Moses in the bush, of whom it is thus written, ‘The angel of Jehovah 
appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of the bush.—And when 


*¢ When spiritual beings touch and sce spiritual things the effect is exactly the same to 
the sense, aS when natural beings touch and see natural things, and therefore when man 
first becomes a spirit, he is not aware of his decease, and believes that he is still in the 
body which he had when he was in the world. A human spirit also enjoys every sense, 
both external and internal, which he enjoyed in the world. He sees as before, He hears 
and speaks as before. He smells and tastes as before, and when he is touched he feels as 
before.”—H. & H. 461. 


\ 


The Angel Jehovah. 21 


Jehovah saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst 
of the bush.—God said unto Moses, I am that I am.—And God said moreover 
unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, Jehovah God of 
your fathers hath sent me unto yow (Exod. iil. 2, 4, 14, 15); from which words 
it is evident, that it was an angel who appeared to, Moses as a flame in the 
bush, and that he spake as Jehovah, because the Lord, or Jehovah spake by 
him. For, in order that man may be spoken to by vocal expressions, which 
are articulate sounds, in the ultimates of nature, the Lord uses the ministry of 
angels, by filling them with the divine, and by laying asleep what is of their 
own proprium, so that they know no otherwise than that they are Jehovah: 
thus the divine of Jehovah, which is in the supremes, descends into the lowest 
of nature, in which mau is as to sight and hearing. Hence it may appear how 
the angels spake .by the prophets, viz. that the Lord himself spake, although 
by angels, and that the angels did not speak at all from themselves. That the 
Word is from the Lord, appears from many passages ; as in Matthew: ‘That 
it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 
Behoid, a virgin shall bear in the womb, and shall bring forth.a son’ (1. 22, 23): 
besides other passages. Because the Lord speaks by angels when he speaks 
with man, it is hence that he is throughout the Word called an angel; and 
then by an angel is signified, as was said, some essential appertaining to the 
Lord, and proceeding from the Lord.”—A. C. 1925. 


We have in the above what we conceive to be the true key to the 
mystery of the divino-angelic theophanies recorded in the Scriptures. 
The interiors of the angel were so infilled and occupied by an influx 
from the Divine, that his own powers were in abeyance, his conscious- 
ness suspended, and he became, for the time being, a mere organ 
of Jehovah, through which he conveyed his will and made known his 
counsels. ‘There is nothing, I think, incredible in this, although there 
is much more to be said in explanation, as will appear in due time. 
In fact, the same thing holds good occasionally in regard to human 
agents who are employed as the Lord’s messengers, and, therefore, 
speak in his name. Thus Deut. xxxi. 23, “And he (Moses) gave 
Joshua, the son.of Nun, a charge and said, Be strong and of a good 
courage; for thou shalt bring the children of Israel unto the land 
which I sware unto them; and I will be with thee.” Moses here 
merges himself in the Divine Prompter of his words. Not unlike this 
is the case of the prophet who is spoken of as doing what he an- 
- nounces in the name of the Lord. Jer. i. 10, 11, “ Behold, | have put 
my words in thy mouth. See, I have this day set thee over the na- 
tions, and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to 
destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” Numerous ad- 
ditional instances of this usage could be adduced, but adequate proof 
of the principle is all that is at present requisite. The interior grounds, 
the rationalé, of the grand fact itself, I shall endeavor to unfold in 
subsequent letters; but ere we can with advantage enter upon this 
ground, it will be expedient to develop at some length the doctrine of 
the Lord’s Divine Homanrry, to which accordingly I shall devote my 
next. : 

I would simply remark in conclusion, that from the considerations 
above adduced, it will appear to be of little consequence whether the 
original be rendered Angel of Jehovah or Angel-Jehovah, which I 
have adopted as the heading of my letter. Grammatical usage is 


A. 


22 Letters toa Trinitarian.—Letter III. 


probably somewhat more in favor of the former rendering, although, 
as Dr. J. Pye Smith remarks, the correctness of the latter cannot be 
absolutely disproved. Swedenborg’s explanation of the fundamental 
truth involved, shows that the appellation is intrinsically proper. 

| Yours, &c. 


; 


LETTER III. 


THE DIVINE HUMANITY. 


DEAR SIR, ' 

In order to a just appreciation of the closing extract given in my 
last from Swedenborg and of numerous others to follow, it will be 
requisite to present more distinctly his leading doctrine of the Divine 
nature, in which , the principles of Love and Wisdom are made to 
comprehend the sum of all the perfections usually ascribed to Jeho- 
vah. As Heat and Light may be said to comprise all the properties 
of the sun, so. the Divine Love and the Divine Wisdom embrace 
within themselves all the moral and intellectual elements which the 
mind conceives of as constituting the infinite and uncreated source 
of all being. What are ordinarily termed Holiness, Justice, Mercy, 
Benevolence, &c., are merely the different modifications or phases 
of Love. Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence, refer them- 
elves to the head of Wisdom, for which we may substitute Truth, 
just as we may speak of Good or Goodness in the place of Love, for 
Good is the correlate of Love, as Truth is of Wisdom. This holds 
as well in regard to man as to God, since man, in the grand constitu- 
ents of his nature, is an image of God. Assuming thesé then as the 

aramount principles in the nature of Jehovah, we shall have little 
difficulty in admitting that the Divine Love is to the Divine Wisdom 
what the Esse of any thing is to its Haistere, or the substance to the 
form; for Thought in all intelligent beings is the form of Affec- 
tion. But the Esse of all existence is its Life ; the Divine Life, 
therefore, is the Divine Love, and all human life is, in the last analy- 
sis, identical with love. That the truth of this proposition may not 
strike you at once, is very possible ; yet Iam persuaded that it will 
eventually force itself upon your conviction. How otherwise will 
you account for the effect produced even upon the physical system 
by the shock of disappointment falling upon a dominant and all- 
absorbing love? What an utter prostration of all the faculties and 
functions of the body oftentimes ensues. But the life of the body is 
in the life of the spirit, and the spirit is the seat of love, or rather its 
very essence is love. 

In assuming that Love is the Esse of all being, whether Divine, 
angelic, or human, we necessarily preclude the idea that it is a quality 
pertaining to some unknown substance or substratum, as sweetness 


The Divine Humanity. 23 


is the quality of sugar. It is itself the primary substance and sub- 
stratum. As in regard to Heat, it is impossible for the mind, in its 
research into the nature of this element, to reach the conception of 
any primordial substance, short of the Divine substance itself, of which 
it is a quality, or to say that Heat proceeds from something hot (for 
how came it hot except by heat previously applied 2), so in respect 
to Love, we must at length inevitably rest in the conclusion, that 
there is nothing that lies back of tt—nothing of which it is to be pre- 
dicated as a quality. It is fundamental and primary in every -idea of 
intelligent being. In God it is underived, self-subsisting, and eternal. 
In angels and men it is derived by incessant influx from its infinite 
source. And as the love is the life of every thing that lives, Life it- 
self is not creatable, because Love is not. Throughout the universe 
of dependent being, whether angelic, human, animal, or vegetable, 
there is no created life. It is perpetual influx, from the self-existing 
fountain of life in the Deity, into adapted receptive organs. In Him 
we live, move, and have our being. 

Such, then, if our position be sound, is God—infinite Love and infi- 
nite Wisdom, or, what is equivalent, infinite Goodness and infinite 
Truth. In this character he is to be viewed as subsisting from eter- 
nity, and it is a character predicable strictly of one being, in whom 
no distinction can exist that will admit of being expressed by a term 
indicative of a divided personality. Love and Wisdom, or Affection 
and Intellect, or Will and Understanding, enter essentially into the 
very elemental conception of an intelligent person, whether create or 
uncreate, and the duality involved in the idea of these principles of- 
fers no more disturbance to the impression of absolute unity of being, 
than does'the fact of man’s possession of Love and Intellect inter- 
fere with the conviction of his being still but one person and not two. 
As easily could we imagine that the unity of the sun was destroyed by 
reason of its two-fold emanation of light and heat, as that the Divine 
Love and Wisdom could be the basis of a bi-personal distinction. If 
now we add to this the idea of action, operation, proceeding energy, 
we complete our conception of a trinal Deity without at the same 
time mentally dividing him into three. There is indeed a triplicity 
of aspects in which he is presented to the mind, and one too founded 
upon a real three-fold distinction, in the constituent principles of his 
nature, but not one that can, with any propriety, be laid as the foun- 
dation of a tri-personal distinction. The terms Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost, denote not three persons, but three essentials of one person. 

All this, 1 think, is somewhat easy of apprehension, and what 
many Trinitarians would perhaps admit, so long as their thoughts re- 
mained centred in the contemplation of the abstract and absolute 
Godhead, apart from all reference to Christ as “ God manifested in 
the flesh.” But no sooner does the idea of the Lord’s incarnation 
form itself in the mind, than a vague conception of some mysterious 
Trinity of persons ensues, to the second of which the assumption of 
our nature is attributed. But the view already given of the neces- 
sary and essential unity of the Divine Being, we hold to be absolutely 
imperative on our belief, and to be utterly exclusive of any theory of 


24 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter LIT. 


the Godhead which involves the idea of three persons subsisting from 
eternity. -Whatever be the true character of Christ as the Redeemer 
of men—whatever the Divinity predicated of Him—it must be such 
as to consist entirely with the unity above asserted. This lies at the 
foundation of every correct view of the nature of the Deity, as truly 
as the axioms lie at the foundation of every course of mathematical 
reasoning. The denial of it is the denial of a first principle, which 
does violence to intuition, Nor can this conviction be shaken by the 
most multitudinous array of Scriptural passages apparently declar- 
ing the contrary, for so overwhelming is the evidence from inspira- 
tion and reason on this head, that we know the position cannot be con- 
travened by anything contained in holy writ when 27%ghily understood. 
While, therefore, we readily concede and strenuously maintain the 
fact of a threefold distinction in the Divine nature, indicated in its 
reference to the economy of redemption by the terms Father, Son, 


and Holy Spirit, we at the same time reject, with equal assurance, 


that form of the doctrine which makes what is termed the second 
person of the sacred three, in contradistinction from the other two, 
to have come into the conditions of humanity. The true doctrine we 
hold to be, that the one, undivided, and absolute Jehovah took upon 
- him our nature and accomplished redemption in our behalf. This 
we affirm to be, upon the authority of Revelation, not only true in 
itself, but the great and paramount truth of the Christian system, with- 
out the sincere recognition of which there is no genuine faith in the 


God of the Scriptures. This I shall hope to show still more distinctly 


in the sequel. 

The ground I have thus far assumed will necessarily govern the 
tenor of the whole discussion upon which I have entered. The ulti- 
mate scope at which [ aim is to determine the true charaeter of 
Christ’s work in the scheme of human redemption, and this can never 
be done without first discovering his true character in himself, and 
the relation which he sustains to the Supreme Deity. The knowl- 
. edge of what Christ was prior to the incarnation is indispensably 
requisite to a knowledge of what he was and did in his incarnation. 
That he was from eternity divine, you have no hesitation to admit. 
But if he was divine he was God, and if God, the supreme God ; for 
the terms are of identical import. Again, the supreme God is Je- 
hovah, and God incarnate is Jehovah incarnate, which necessitates 
with you the admission, that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same. 
The Unitarian of course deaies this, because he denies the compe- 
tency of the Old Testament to determine the point for Christians, who 
are shut up, in their view, exclusively to the teachings of the New 
Testament in relation to every thing touching the person and work 


of the Saviour. I would not, however, imply by this, that the view 


of Christ for which ] am contending is not sustained in the writings 
of the Evangelists and Apostles. On the contrary, 1 am fully per- 
suaded, and shall hope to show, that the testimony of the two Cove- 
nants is perfectly univocal on this head, and that the Unitarian must 
be cast before his own tribunal; but, as [ remarked in the outset, ] 
propose to found my argument primarily on the Old Testament 


ve 


The Divine Humanity. 25 


Scriptures, by which the language of the New on this subject is 
throughout controlled. 

Maintaining, then, on adequate grounds, that Jesus Christ prior to - 
his incarnation was the veritable and only Jehovah, it remains to be 
ascertained, if possible, what view can be gained of his nature which 
will make it conceivable that in this character he should have as- 
sumed the earthly humanity of the sons of men, This is the grand 
problem to be solved. This is the master mystery, the unfolding of 
which discloses the true economy of redemption and converts faith 
into knowledge. And here it is that we are constrained to avow our 
grateful thanks to the God of all grace for the illumination vouch- 
safed to his servant Swedenborg, in consequence of which a flood of 
light has been thrown upon the deepest arcana pertaining to the Di- 
vine .Being and the universe of creatures. We, who have studied 
the purport of these sublime revelations and compared them with the 
fairest deductions of our own minds, can scarcely desire any infor- 
mation on the subjects treated of which has not been granted. Still 
I am well aware that what is from this source authority with me, on 
the themes in question, cannot be supposed to be authority with you 
in your present state of mind, and I shall therefore endeavor to pre- 
sent the matter in such a light that’ the conclusions reached may 
stand before you independent of any estimate that either you or [ 
may have formed of Swedenborg as a professed messenger from 
Heaven. Indeed, it is because we perceive that what he has an- 
nounced is intrinsically true in itself that we so firmly believe he was 
commissioned to announce it, Our credence is given to the truthful- 
ness of the messenger from our conviction of the truth of the mes-, 
sage; while at the same time we refuse to admit that the intelligence 
which thus recognizes the truth of the message was competent to have 
reached it apart from the medium of the messenger. Human reason 
may put the seal of its sanction on a multitude of truths which it 
_ ‘gould never have discovered by its own powers. 

That “God is a spirit” is one of the most emphatic declarations of 
holy writ, and equally clear is its teaching that man was made in 
the image of God. It is reasonable, therefore, to look for the lead- 
ing points of this similitude in the spiritual nature of man. On the 
same grounds we are authorised to suppose that the divine image 
will be more clearly recognised in the disembodied than in the em- 
bodied man, especially when a moral conformity to his divine proto- 
type exists within him. The essential constituents of humanity are 
more in the spirit than in the body, inasmuch as the body is an effect 
_of which the spirit is the proximate cause. Yet as every effect is po- 
tentially in its cause, we infer that there is that in the human spirit 
which is normally represented in the human body ; the body is the 
exponent of the spirit, so far as that which is natural and material can 
effigy that which is spiritual ; in a word, that the body corresponds to 
the spirit, which is but another form of saying, that the body is what 
it is from the influx of the elaborating spirit into it. The hidden po- 
tencies of the spirit develop themselves in sensible manifestation In 
the structure and functions of the corporeal fabric. 1 am unable to 


26 Letters to a Trinitartian.—Letter ITI. 


see why it is not a fair deduction from this, that if. man is created 
in the image of God, and what we term his essential humanity—made 
visible to the senses in his bodily frame—is virtually and elementally 
comprised in his spiritual entity, that this very humanity is a part of 
the divine image——that is, that there is a sense in which the true 
human principle pertains to the divine exemplar after which man 
was fcrmed. Indeed, how can it be otherwise? Does not man derive 
his distinctive nature from the possession of Understanding and Af- 
fection? Are not these the very principles and attributes which con- 
stitute him man? Take these away and what of humanity is left 
to your conception? If you say, the body, still there would be no 
human body if there were no human spirit to form it, and what pos-' 
sible idea can you have of a human spirit to which Will or Affection 
and Understanding were wanting? But the Will and Understanding 
in man are the finite counterparts to the infinite Love and Wisdom 
of his Maker. It is in these faculties that the image of God is re- 
flected, and yet these are the very groundwork of his humanity. 
How then is it possible to avoid the conclusion that there is in God a 
Divine Humanity? That these terms may, at first blush, strike you 
as utterly incompatible with each other, is very possible, but the se- 
quel, I trust, will dispel the air of paradox which invests the position. 
That your conception on this head may also be embarrassed by the 
consideration of form, is by no means unlikely, but 1 beg you, never- 
theless, to ponder well the proposition and see whether it can be by 
any possibility avoided. If it do not involve an essential truth, pray 
what is the truth in regard to the inspired declaration that man was 
_made in the image of God? Does not image imply resemblance tok 
a child is said to be an image of his father,do we not necessarily 
convey the idea of that in the child which reflects the father, as the 
impression on wax reflects the seal that stamped it? If you say that 
this is merely external, relating only to the aspect of the father, I en- 
treat you to carry your thoughts a little further, and inquire whether 
the external similitude is not due to an internal cause, or, in other 
words, whether the soul of the child, derived from the father, has not 
moulded the countenance to the paternal image? If so, it can by no 
means be maintained that the likeness is merely external. The outer 
man is evermore the creation of the inner man, and the father, in his 
distinguishing attributes, is reproduced in the child. Shall we hesi- 
tate to say, then, that man is man because God is Man? The rela- 
tion is that of a type to an archetype—of a copy to a pattern. Man 
could not possibly be an image of God, were not God an exemplar of 
man. Zi 
But God, you say, is infinite, and man is finite. How-can the finite 
represent the infinite? But this is a question which you are as much 
concerned to answer as] am. We are both estopped in our interro- 
gation by the unequivocal averment that man was made in the Di- 
vine image. You have to determine the sense in which this holds as 
well as myself. My position, however, involves no difficulty ; the 
difficulty pressing on yours 1s, I conceive, insuperable. But of this 
more as we proceed. 


The Dwine Humanity. 2%, 


As to the fact of God’s existing in the human form, one thing may 
with all confidence be asserted. Love and Wisdom cannot subsist, 
or be conceived of, apart from a subject in whom they inhere. “ No 
intelligent person,” says Swedenborg, “can deny in himself that in 
God are love and wisdom, mercy and clemency, and good and truth 
itself, for they are from Him; and as he cannot deny that these things 
are in God, neither can he deny that God is man; for none of these 
things can exist abstractedly from man ; man is their subject, and to 
separate them from their subject is to say that they do not exist. 
Think of wisdom, and suppose it out of a man; is it anything!” 
Indecd the idea of Love and Wisdom existing out of a personal sub- 
ject is as absurd as to suppose that the heart and lungs can exist and 
act apart from a body which they actuate. Can anything more 
completely baffle all rational conception ? 

We are shut up, therefore, as we believe to the inevitable con- 
clusion that God is Very Man—the Infinite Man—comprising within 
Himself all the distinguishing attributes of our human nature, and 
thus affording an adequate ground for man to be made in his verita- 
ble image.* But as we have already seen that Christ is God, there- 
fore the infinite humanity of J ehovah must be the humanity of Jesus, 
or, in other words, our Lord Jesus Christ must have possessed from 
eternity a Divine Human principle, and this admitted it is compara- 
tively easy to conceive that this Divine Human may have clothed 
itself with the ultimates of our human Humanity, so to speak, in order 
to come down to our level and to reach us by its vivifying influx of 
spiritual life. For the same reason, we can more readily apprehend 
the grand truth which we are endeavoring to establish, that the mani- 
festations of Jehovah were made to the fathers from the earliest pe- 
riods under a human form, for this was the appropriate form, inas- 
much as the Lord from his very nature exists in that form. Of this 
I shall hope to adduce still more abundant proof in the progress of 


the discussion. 
Yours, &c. 


Whe) wties or 1h is i Sy See es Arsh ee 


* <<] will relate what must needs seem wonderful: every man, in the idea of his spirit, 
sees God as a man, even he who in the idea of his body sees Him like a cloud, a mist, air, 
ox ether, even he who has denied that God is aman: man is in the idea of his spirit when 
he thinks abstractedly, and in the idea of his body when he thinks not abatractedly, That 
every man in the idea of his spirit sees God asa man, has been made evident to me from 
men after death, who are then in the ideas of spirit; for men after death become spirits, 


in which case, it is impossible for them to think of God otherwise than as of a man.”— 
A, E. 1115. 


28 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter 1V. 


LETTER IV, 
THE DIVINE HUMANITY. 


DEAR SIR, 


In the preceding series of letters we have found ourselves con- 
ducted, by a course of independent reasoning, to substantially the 
same result with that which forms the grand theme of Swedenborg’s 
disclosures respecting the nature of our Lord prior to the incarnation. 
We have seen that a Divine Human principle pertains essentially 
to Jehovah, and is actually involved in every just conception of his 
being.* | We do not say, however, that this. result, announced by 
Swedenborg, could ever have been attained so as to be set forth 
clearly and distinctly, if his illumination had not led the way and put 
us upon the right track of inquiry. But it is important to hold the 
assurance, that his discoveries of divine things do find a response in 
the oracles of our own minds, and that thus they may be, as it were, 
rationally verified. I shall, therefore, henceforward feel under no 
embarrassment in quoting his language whenever occasion shall ren- 
der it expedient. The views advanced by such a man, on such a 
subject, cannot but be entitled to the gravest consideration. 

Our position, be it recollected, is, that a Divine Humanity exists in 
Jehovah as the very condition of his being, and the only adequate idea 
we can form on this subject results from mentally transferring to Him 
the distinctive attributes of our own humanity, and supposing Him 
to possess them in an infinite degree. If it. be objected that our hu- 
manity exists in a finite form, and that we cannot conceive of an in- 
finite human form, | would submit whether the same difficulty does 
not press upon the conception of infinite Wisdom and infinite Love, 
which, being substance, must necessarily have a form. These attri- 
butes you admit are, in us, an image in miniature of the same attri- 
butes in Jehovah. But in Him they exist in infinite measure. How 
then can the finite be an image of the infinite? Yet you do not 
whisper the least dissent from the divine declaration that such is the 
fact. You will perceive, therefore, that until this fact is in some way 
explained so as to subvert our main position; we cannot be expected 


-* «Ail the angels who are in the heavens never perceive the Divine under any other 
form than the human; and what is wonderful, those who are in the superior heavens 
cannot think otherwise concerning the Divine, They are brought into that necessity of 
thinking from the Divine itself which flows in, and also from the form of heaven, accord- 
ing to which their thoughts extend themselves around :. for every thought which the angels 
have has extension into heaven, and according to that extension they have intelligence 
and wisdom. Hence it is, that all there acknowledge the Lord, because the Divine Hu- 
man is given only in Him. These things have not only been told me by the angels, but 


it has also been given me to perceive them, when elevated into the interior sphere of hea-) 


ven. Hence it is manifest, that the wiser the angels are, the more clearly they perceive 
this; and hence it is, that the Lord appears to them: for the Lord appears ina divine 
angelic form, which is the human, to those who acknowledve and betieve in a visible 
Divine, but not those who acknowledge and believe in an invisible Divine ; for the former 
can see their Divine, but the latter cannot.”"—H. §& H, 79. 


The Divine Humanity. 29 


to recede from our ground, simply from the urgency of an objection 
which presses as heavily upon your argument as upon ours. It is 
certain that man was created in the image of God—it is certain that 
this image consists in the possession of wisdom and love—it is cer. 
tain that these principles in Jehovah are infinite and yet must inhere 
in a person, and that person must be both a substance and a form, as 
a substance without a form, or a form without a substance, is a non- 
entity. But an infinite substance must have an infinite form, and 
the conception labors no more in regard to the one than to the other. 
Our difficulties on this subject arise solely from our subjection, in this 
world, to the influence of the ideas of time and space. | Let these be 
abstracted, and let us apprehend the real truth, that God has no rela- 
tion to space——no other at least, than that he is “in all space with- 


‘out space, and in all time without time,’—and we shall be enabled 


to rise to a higher and juster conception of the divine nature. We 
shall then feel the force of our author’s language in the following 
paragraph: | | 


“That God is Man, can hardly be comprehended by those who judge all 
things from the sensual things of the external man: for the sensual man can- 
not think otherwise of the Divine than from the world and from the things 
which are there; thus not otherwise of the Divine and Spiritual Man, than as 
of a corporeal and natural one. He concludes thence, that if God were man, 
He would be in size as the universe: and if He ruled heaven and earth, it 
would be done by means of many, according to the manner of kings in the 
world. If it should be said to him, that in heaven there is not extension of 
space as there is in the world, he would not at all comprehend it; for he who 
thinks from nature and its light alone, never thinks otherwise than from an 
extense, such as is before the eyes. But they are exceedingly deceived, when 
they think in like manner concerning heaven; the extense which is there is 
not as the extense in the world.”—-H. § H. 85. 


You see then the conclusion to which we are brought, and which 
we perceive no way of avoiding but by a direct denial of the inspired 
declaration, that man was made in the image of God, or by an equally 
direct assertion, that as to the constituents of that image we neither 
know nor can know anything. This, however, is itself no slight 
assumption—to claim to know how much or how little can be known 
—-to define the exact limits of the human powers, and to prescribe 
the ne plus ultra of their attainments. As we have seen the futility 
of this claim in a thousand instances in the history of the past—as 
the boundaries once set to the human mind have been repeatedly 
broken through—so we have no distrust of its continued advances in 
time to come. By the ampler unfoldings of nature, we believe the 
Deity is for ever to be more and more fully disclosed to the intelli- 
gence of his creatures, and by the laws of interpretation a more dis- 
tinct and definite conception gained of the import of the terms em- 
ployed by revelation to set forth his being and perfections. If he 
addresses men in human language, we see no reason to doubt. that ° 
that language is capable of an explication which shall incessantly 
bring it nearer and nearer to the grasp of our faculties, and that in 
proportion as this is done we shall see the God of the Universe be- 


30 - Letters to a Trinitarian.—Leiter IV. 


coming more perceptibly one with the God of the Bible, which is but 
to say that the highest Rationalism shall eventually harmonize with 
the highest Revelation-ism. That this result is even now actually 
realized in the system of Swedenborg, we are doubtless much more 
ready to assert than you are to admit; but our assertion is made upon 
the basis of a profound examination of the whole scheme, while the de- 
nials of our opponents are put forth upon a presumption that dispenses 
with inquiry. This we affirm, because we never meet with objec- 
tions that take the least cognizance of the fundamental grounds of | 
our belief. They invariably skim the surface without, striking into 
the sub-soil of the principles of the system. | 

From the conclusion hitherto reached, that a Divine Humanity 
pertains to Jehovah, the mind is undoubtedly greatly relieved on the 
score of the theophanies made to the patriarchs and prophets. We 
see an adequate ground for these appearances having been made 
under the human form, and we are naturally prompted to recognise 
in them, though spiritually perceived, a significant foreshadowing of 
that subsequent manifestation which was made in the uléiimates of 
humanity, that is to say, in a body of flesh and. blood.* Still I can 
easily conceive that you are not yet prepared to apprehend the pre- 
cise mode in which the asserted angelic agency is involved in these 
manifestations of Jehovah. Why, you ask, was any medium of com- 
munication necessary? Why was it not competent to omnipotence 
to bring down the requisite revelation directly to the human faculties? 
—a question to which I acknowledge the difficulty of offering a reply 
that shall be satisfactory to.a state of mind not at present in accord- 
ance with the vein of Swedenborg’s spiritual announcements. To 
one that is, the difficulty is comparatively slight. In attempting, 
however, an answer, I must revert to the distinction above stated of 
Love and Wisdom in the Divine nature, on which the true solution 
entirely depends. This distinction must be regarded as extremely 
marked in itself, though the two principles, both in God and man, 
really form a one. Love, constituting as it does the esse of being, can 
never be directly manifested. Though in reality the inmost element 
of the being of man and angel, yet neither man nor angel can ever . 
come to the interior sight of the love which constitutes their life, as - 
they can in regard to their thought, which is the form or ewistere of 
love: There is obviously a sense in which a man may be said to 
see his thoughts. But love is made known only by feeling. It 
reveals itself by the sense of itself. So also in regard to the 
Divine Love. [t is by influx zn every thing that lives, but it is 
in it latently, as heat is in the sun’s light in the season of spring, yet 
it is for ever incapable of wnmediate manifestation. So far then as 
this element of the Divine nature is concerned, it is utterly inacces- 
sible to the vision of any created being, and no language aflirming 


* <¢'The Israelitish Church worshiped Jehovah, who in himself is the invisible God, 
but under a human form, which Jehovah God put on by means of an angel, and in 
which form he was seen by Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Hagar, Gideon, Joshua, and some- 
times by the prophets, which human form was representative of the Lord who was to come ; ~ 
therefore, all and every thing in that Church was made representative also.”—-T..C, R. 786. 


The Divine Humanity. 3] 


visibility, in any sense, of Jehovah, can possibly be understood as 
relating to his essential Love, or what may be termed the funda- 
mental ground of his being. “That,” says our author, “ which pro- 
ceeds from His Divine Esse without a medium, reaches not man, for 
-His Divine Esse is invisible, and being invisible comes not within the 
reach of thought.” So far, therefore, as manifestation is predicated 
of Him, it must always be conceived of as referring to his Wisdom 
or Truth alone, which is the appropriate: form of his Love, just as a 
man’s intellect is the form of his affection. 

I am well aware of the stone of stumbling which must necessarily 
lie in your way from the application of the term form to subjects of 
a purely intellectual or spiritual nature. Yet how can it be avoided 
when treating of substance? Are not the two inseparably united ? 
Can there be a substance without a form? and if a spiritual sub- 
stance, must it not have a spiritual form? Is there, in fact, any real 
impropriety or incongruity in saying that a man’s thought is the form 
of his affection ?—-for surely we understand very easily what is meant 
when it is said that a man’s dominant affection controls and moulds 
his thought, albeit this would be termed a metaphorical expression. 
We cannot, therefore, dispense with the term, even in speaking of 
the Deity himself, in whom Wisdom or Truth is the form of Love, 
the two constituting in unison the basis of the similitude which ren- 
ders man an image of God. 

If, then, it be conceded that we may speak of the Divine Truth as 
the form of the Divine Love or Good, the question comes before us 
as to the relation which subsists between the Divine Truth and the 
Divine Humanity previously established; the determining of which 
will necessarily guide our researches as to the nature of the ¢heopha- 
nies we are now considering. 

The grand point of inquiry is to ascertain how the idea of God, as 
a personal being, can come to the human mind, seeing that he is in- 
finite and man is finite, and seeing too that the Divine Hsse or Love 
cannot, in the nature of things, become a subject of anmedvate mani- 
_festation. Whatever of the Divine is made directly manifest to the 
intellectual perception of creatures, must pertain, not to his Love, 
but to his Wisdom or Truth. This is a fact of great moment in the 
discussion—that it is the Divine Ewistere and not the Divine Lsse 
which becomes cognizable to the interior vision both of men and 
angels, just as a man in this world becomes visible to another by 
means of his body, which is his existere, though his soul, which is his 
esse, andinhis body. But we do not see the soul; we see only the 
body, and the man is manifested in the body. Now apply this to the 
Lord himself, in whom the Divine Wisdom or Truth, which is his 
existere, is 1o the Divine Love, which is his esse, what the body is to 
the soul, or the form to the substance. How can this Divine Truth 
manifest itself, in its personality, to the mind of man, so as to con- 
centrate upon it his affections, and by an intelligent apprehension 
effect a saving conjunction with itself? Must it not come before 
him in-a form? And yet this form must be finited to be brought 
within the reach of his finite faculties? He is incapable of per- 


32 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter IV. 


ceiving an infinite form. Here tien is the exigency—-to conceive how 
the infinite Divine Truth can present itself in a form to the mental 
perception of a man. We have, however, the advantage, having pre- 
viously established the fact that Jehovah is essentially Man, or that 
there is in Him a Divine Human from eternity. The only. difficulty 
is in conceiving how this Humanity, which is infinite, can make it- 
‘self cognizable to an intelligence which is finite.* 

In the solution of this difficulty we must necessarily elevate our 
thoughts to a contemplation of Jehovah as the self-existent and 
eternal fountain of the efflux of Love, Life, and Light to the uni- 
verse of angels and men. In all-ideas of communication to men 
from this boundless: source of being, we must conceive of him as 
flowing down through heaven into the minds which are formed to be 
receptive of his Wisdom and Love. But when we speak of the 
Lord’s descending by influx, we are carefully to exclude all ideas of 
mere local transition. We are dealing wholly with spiritual concep- 
tions, from which time and space are to be entirely banished. So 
likewise as to heaven—the true conception will be at once destroyed 
if we think of it as a place spatially defined. Heaven is the aggre- 
gate states of all heavenly minds, and these states are formed by the 
pervading presence of the elements of Love and Wisdom.  It-is the 
Divine of the Lord which constitutes heaven. “The angels taken 
together, are called heaven, because they constitute it; but still it is 
the Divine proceeding from the Lord which flows in with the angels, 
and which is received by them, which makes heaven in general and 
in particular. The Divine proceeding from the Lord is the good of 
love and the truth of faith; as far, therefore, as they receive good 
and truth from the Lord, so far they are angels, and so far they are 
heaven.” “Heaven in general with all, and in particular with each, 
is a reception of the influx which is from the Divine Essence.” ‘Thus 
teaches Swedenborg, and if revelation does not expressly say as 
much, it must assuredly mean. it, and “the meaning of the Word zs 
the Word.” The true sense of the Scriptures can be no other than 
that sense which is according to truth. 

For the Lord, therefore, to descend. through heaven, is for his 
Divine Truth and Good to flow through the interiors of angelic spirits 
downward to the natural plane of men on earth. But these angels 
are all men, and, viewed collectively, they are as one Grand Man 
before the Lord, for the heavenly form is the human form.t This 


* « That Jehovah appearing denotes the appearing of the Lord’s Divine in his Human, 
is evident from this, that his Divine cannot appear to any man, nor even to any angel, 
except ‘by the Divine Human; and the Divine Human is nothing but the Divine Truth 
which proceeds from himself.” —<A. C. 6945. 

+ ** That heaven in the whole complex resembles one man, is an arcanum not yet 
known in the world; but in the heavens it is very well’ known.” “ The angels indeed 
do not appear in the whole complex in such a form, for the whole heaven does not fall 
into the view of any angel; but they sometimes see remote societies, which consist of 
many thousands of angels, as one in such a form; and from a society, as from a part, 
they conclude as to the whole, which is heaven. For in the most perfect form, the 
wholes are as the parts, and the parts as the wholes; the distinction is only as between 
similar things greater and less. Hence they say the whole heaven is such in the sight of 
the Lord, because the Divine forms the inmost and supreme of all things.”—H. & H. 
oY, 62. 


os 


| aie —o 


The Divine Humanity. 33 


results from the plastic power of thertiord’s Divine Human principle 
which continually tends to produce images of itself. The Divine is’ 
in the Grand Man of heaven as the soul is in the body; and as the 
soul manifests itself through the medium of the body, so the Lord, 
before he appeared in flesh, manifested himself through the medium 
of the angelic heaven.* He did this from necessity, for in no other 
way could he approach man so as to impart to him an intelligible 
idea of his personal mode of existence. . “ Before the Lord’s advent 
into the world, whenever Jehovah appeared, it was in the form of an 
angel; for when he passed through heaven He clothed Himself with 
that form, which is the human form; the whole heaven from the . 
Divine Esse there being as one man.”—A. C. 10,579... The human 
mind might indeed have otherwise formed a vague quasi idea of 
Jehovah as a boundless, formless spirit—a kind of illimitable ether—_ 
but this is not the true conception of the true God, inasmuch as it 
is one that, is devoid of all conjunctive virtue. Of this, however, I 
shall have more to say hereafter. 

It was then by an angelic medium that the Lord made himself 
known in the early ages to his people. He inflowed into an angel 
and filled him with his presence and in his form revealed his own 
form, as far as it was possible to do it. The angel was his representa- 
tive for the time being, and on this ground an identity of person is 
often predicated of the Lord and the angel in the sacred record. 
This is very clearly indicated in the following passage: 


he 
The a. the Divine Human is called the Angel of Jehovah, is be- 
cause Jehovah, before the coming of the Lord, when He passed through 
heaven, appeared in a human form as an angel: for the whole angelic heaven 
resembles one man, which is called the Grand Man: wherefore when the 
Divine itself passed through the angelic heaven, He appeared in a human 
‘form as an angel before those with whom He spake: this was the Divine 
Human of Jehovah before the coming of the Lord: the Lord’s Human, when 
made Divine, is the same thing, for the Lord is Jehovah Himself in the Divine 
Human. That the Lord, as to the Divine Human, is called an angel, is further 
evident from several passages in the New Testament, where the Lord says 
that He was sent by the Father; and to be sent signifies to proceed, and sent, in 
the Hebrew tongue, signifies an angel. That the Lord calls Himself the Sent, 
may be.seen, Matt. x. 40; xv. 24; Mark ix. 37; Luke iv. 43.;.ix. 48 ,¢x,.16 ; 
John iii. 17, 84; iv. 34; v. 23, 24, 36, 37, 38; vi. 29, 39, 40, 44, 57; vii. 16, 18, 28 
rn 

* «* The infinite Exzstere, in which is the infinite Esse, they (the most Ancient Church) 
perceived asa Divine Man, by reason that they knew that the infinite Evistere was 
brought forth from the infinite Esse through heaven; and as heaven is the Grand Man, 
therefore they could not have any other idea or perception concerning the infinite Evistere 
from the infinite Z’sse, than concerning a Divine Man, for whatever passes through 
heaven as through the Grand Man from the infinite Esse, this has with it an image thereof 
in all and single things.””—A. 'C. 4687. ; 

** The Lord spake with John through heaven, and through heaven he also spake with 
the prophets, and through heaven he speaks with every one to whoin he does speak: and 
this by reason that the angelic heaven in common is as one man, whose life and soul 
the Lord is, wherefore all thatthe Lord speaks, he speaks through heaven, just as the 
souland mind of man speaks through his body—for there is an influx of the Lord 
through heaven, just as there is an influx of the soul through the body ; the body indeed 
speaks and acts, and also feels something from influx, but still the body does nothing 
from itself as of itself, but is acted upon; that such is the nature of speech, yea, of all 
influx of the Lord through heaven into men, has been given to me to know from much 
experience.”—A, R. 943. . 


3 


i e. 


34 Letters toa Trinitarian.— Letter IY. 


29; viii. 16, 18, 29, 42; ix. 4; x. 36 ; xi. 41, 42; xii. 44, 45, 49; xiii. 20; xiv. 
24. xvi. 5, 7; xvii. 3 to 8, 18, 21 to 23, 25..—A. C. 6831. 


«The Infinite itself, which is above all the heavens, and above the inmosts 
with man, cannot be manifested except by the Divine Human, which exists 
with the Lord alone. The communication of the infinite with the finite is not 
possible in any other way: which is also the reason that when Jehovah ap- 
peared to the men of the Most Ancient Church, and afterwards to those of the 
‘Ancient Church after the flood, and also in succeeding times to Abraham and 
the prophets, he was manifested to them as a man. Hence it may appear that 
the Infinite Esse never could have been manifested to man,, except by the 
Human Essence, consequently by the Lord.”—A. C. 1990. 


It was in the finite person of the angel that his own infinite person. 


was, as it were, reflected, and thus brought down to the perception 
of the finite faculties of man, and all this from the intrinsic necessity 
of the case. A divine manifestation to finite man was in no other 
way possible. This can by no means be deemed incredible when it 
is considered, that even in this world the human spirit, which per- 
vades and animates the whole material man, may sometimes display 
itself, in its entire present state, by the medium of a single member 
of the body—by a cast of the countenance, a glance of the eye, a 
curl of the lip, or a wave of the hand. The face alone, we well 


know, will often mirror the whole actings of the soul under the pre- 


dominance of a powerful emotion or passion, and even in its repose 
we see depicted the ruling character of the man. “ The face,” says 
Swedenborg, “is the external representation of the interiors, for the 
face is so formed that the interiors may appear in it, as in a repre- 
sentative mirror, and another may thence know what the person’s 
mind is towards him, so that when he speaks he manifests the mind’s 
meaning as well by the speech as by the face.” Nothing more than 
this is necessary to afford a solution of the title yp bn, malak pana, 
angel of the face (or faces), usually rendered angel of the presence, 
because the affection of a being is made present in his face. The 
plural form faces occurs in the original to denote the varieties of 
affection which impress themselves upon the countenance. The 
divine faces, however, imply no absolute variation in the divine 
affections, but simply the effect produced by the state of reception in 
the beholder, which always modifies the manifestation made to him. 
That this should be Swedenborg’s interpretation was of course to be 
expected. “The Divine Esse has never appeared in any visible 
form (in facie), although his Divine Human has so appeared, and 
by that, and, as it were, in that, the Divine Love has appeared.” 
“The Lord in respect to the Divine Human is called the Angel of the 
faces of Jehovah, because the Divine Human is the Divine Esse in a 
visible appearance, that is, in a form.” 

I would here remark that I see nothing in the nature of the sub- 
ject or in the exigencies of the Scriptural testimony to necessitate 
the idea of any particular angel—any one angel by pre-eminence——as 
having been uniformly employed on these occasions, notwithstanding 
the apparently specificating force of the article the— the angel of 
the Lord.” Considering the infinite interval which separates the 


- ee 


\ 


The Divine Humanity. | ; hoe 


highest conceivable creature from. the. Creator, it is plain that no 
angelic intelligence could possess in himself a dignity that should 
peculiarly entitle him to this honor; and as the end to be attained by 
the assumption of the angelic medium could, to human view, be as 
well secured by the intermediate agency of one of this class of beings 
as of another, we are ata loss to perceive the grounds of the sup- 
position to which I am now adverting. The grand fact assumed is 
simply that of the presence of an angel-personator in the Divine 
theophanies. So far as I can see, nothing depended upon the selection 
for the office of one being of this order rather than another. 

We are now prepared for the presentation more in extenso of 
Swedenborg’s. grand announcement on this theme of the Lord’s 
theophany through an angelic medium. In his explanation of Ex. 
xxiii. 23, “my Angel shall go before thee,” he thus writes ;— 


“ The reason why the Lord as to the Divine Human [principle] is meant by 
an angel is, because the several angels, who appeared before the Lord’s com- 
ing into the world, were Jehovah Himself in a human form, or in the form of 
an angel; which is very manifest from this consideration, that the angels who 
appeared were called Jehovah. Jehovah Himself in the human form, or what 
is the same thing, in the form of an angel, was the Lord. His Divine Human 
[principle] appeared at that time as an augel, of whom the Lord Himself 
speaks in John ‘Jesus said, Abraham exulted to see My day, and he saw, and 
rejoiced. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, before Abraham was, [ am,’ viii. 56, 
58. And again, ‘Glorify thou Me, O Father, with Thyself, with the glory 
which I had with Thee before the world was,’ xvii.5, That Jeliovah other- 
wise could not appear, is also manifest from the Lord’s words in John, ‘ Ye 
have not heard at any time the voice of the Father, nor seen His appearance,’ 
v. 37. And again, ‘Not that any one has seen the Father, except He who is 
with the Father, He hath seen the Father, vi. 46. From these passages it 
may be known what the Lord was from eternity. The reason why it pleased 
the Lord to be born a man, was that he might actually put on the Human 
[principle], and might make this Divine, to save the human race. Know, 
therefore, that the Lord is Jehovah Himself, or the Father, in a human form, 
which also’ the Lord Himself teaches in John, ‘I and the Father are one,’ x. 
30. Again, ‘Jesus said, henceforth ye have known and seen the Father. He 
who hath seen Me hath seen the Father. Believe Me that I am in the Father 
and the Father in Me, xiv. 7,9, 11. And again, - All Mine are Thine, and all 
Thine are Mine, xvii. 10. This great mystery is described in John in these 
words, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and 
God was the Word; the same that was in the beginning with God. Allthings 
were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made which was 
made. Aud the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and we have 
seen His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father. No one hath 
seen God at any time, the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Fa- 
ther, He hath brought Him forth to view, i. 1, 2, 3, 14,18. The Word is the: 
Divine Truth, which has been revealed to men, and since this could not be 
revealed except from Jehovah as a man, that is, except from Jehovah in 
the human form, thus from the Lord, therefore it is said, ‘In the beginning 
was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word, Itisa 
known thing in the Church, that, by the Word is meant the Lord, wherefore 
this is openly said, ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongst us, and 
we have seen His glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father.’ 
That the Divine Truth could not be revealed to men, except from Jehovah in 
the human form, is aiso clearly said, ‘No one hath seen God at any time, the 
only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath brought Him 
forth to view. From these considerations it is evident, that the Lord from 


> 


36 . Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter IY. 


eternity was Jehovah, or the Father in a human form but not yet in the flesh, 
for an angel has not flesh. And whereas Jehovah or the Father willed to 
put on allthe human [principle], for the sake of the salvation of the human 
race, therefore also He assumed flesh, wherefore it is said ‘ God was, the Word, 
and the Word was made flesh. And in Luke,‘See ye My hands and My 
feet, that it is [ myself, handle Me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones as ye see Me have,’ xxiv. 89. The Lord’ by these words taught, that 
He was no longer Jehovah under the form of an angel, but that He was Je- 
hovah-Man; which also is meant by these words of the Lord, ‘I came forth 
from the Father, and am come into the world, again I leave the world, and 
go to the Father, John xvi. 28..—A. C 9315. , Bh deri 


From all this. taken in connection with the train of the foregoing 
remark, it would seem difficult to avoid the conclusion, not only that 
Christ is the supreme Jehovah, but that he is Jehovah in unity, to the 
entire and absolute exclusion of any such hypostases or subsistents in 
the Divine Nature as are usually understood by the term persons. 
What possible ground can there be for such hypostases? If the Divine 
Love and Divine Wisdom as already explained, together with 
the Divine procedere, i. e. act, energy, operation of the united two, 
comprise the totality of the Divine nature, and form the comple- 
ment of one Divine Person, what basis remains on which to build 
the theory of the three distinct persons of the Trinity? What is the 
idea which shal] answer to the language of the popular creeds on 
this subject?* Is there any intelligible meaning to the words 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, so long as they are made the represen- 
tatives of three distinct personalities in Jehovah? We have already 
found the Trinity complete in one person; why, then, seek for it in 
three? If you say that by persons is not meant persons, but un- 
known somewhats—certain mysterious dzstinctions in the Deity to 
which the word persons is applied for want of a better—still I would 
beg you to task your intellect:to the utmost, and see if you can con- 
ceive of any other distinctions than those which I have designated 
as the three essentials of the Godhead ; yet these three constitute, of 
necessity, but one person.t I know, indeed, that it is common to 
speak of the Son of God as the second person of the Holy Trinity, 
and also to refer the ancient theophaunies before spoken of to him. 
But the Scriptures never speak of them in this manner. They give 


‘no warrant for this peculiar attribution, They recognize only the 


one, absolute, undivided Jehovah as the true subject of these mani- 
festations.. They never intimate that the Angel was Christ in any 
other sense than that in which the alone Jehovah was Christ, and 
even he could not properly be then so denominated, because the 
anointing on which the title is founded did not take place till after 


* «© What means this, that the Divine is distinguished into three persons? Where is 
this to be found inthe Word? What means this, that the Divine was born from stand 
nity? But that the Divine is one, or One person, or one man, this is intelligible, as also 
that the Divine should have been from eternity. But they are to be excused Herma 
teaching who have known nothing of the style of the Word, that a spiritual senne id 
tains to every expression.”—De Dom. et de Athan. Symb. p. 1. P 

+“ A trine or triune God is not one God, so long as this trine or triunity exists in three 
persons; but hein whoma trine or triunity exists in one person, is one person, is one God 
and that God is the Lord ; enter into whatever intricacies of thought you please yet will 
you never be able to extricate yourself and make out that God is dné, uultss hevtecal 0 
one in person,” —-A. R. 490. 4 oe eae: ae ae 


~ 


* 


The Divine Humanity. 37 


he was made flesh: nor was he, except prophetically, termed Son 
prior to that event. The Son of God was born in time, and not 
begotten from eternity, as I shall produce ample ground for asserting 
as I proceed. All such expressions, in such relations, are proleptical, 
and even. the titles Jesws and Christ, strictly considered, are now 
retrospective, as the character indicated by them has merged itself, 
by reason of the glorification, in that of the alone Jehovah or Lord. 
Again, then, I ask, what are the grounds of the tripersonal theory of 
the Godhead? Where are its sanctions to be found? You surely will 
not refer me to those passages of Holy Writ which assert a triplicity 
in the Divine Nature; for the establishment and elucidation of this 
is the main feature of Swedenborg’s doctrine, and what I have all 
along assumed as the primary truth of revelation. It amounts to 
nothing to tell me that you are taught by the Bible to acknowledge 
God under the threefold character of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
{ should be very sorry indeed if you were not; but I am brought no 
nearer by this confession. to an apprehension of three coequal and 
coeternal persons in the Godhead. And yet this is the very point to 
which, as an opponent of Swedenborg, you have put your faith, your 
logic and your exegetic in pledge. If you make not this apparent 
on adequate grounds, you accomplish nothing to the purpose. The 
question is not concerning a revealed fact—in this we are both 
agreed—-but concerning the manner in which this fact is to be under- 
stood. What is the absolute truth couched under the inspired 
words? If you still insist upon a veritable trinity of persons, are 
you not bound to show that your position can stand in entire consis- 


tency with the declaration of the Divine unity contained in the fol-— 


lowing passages: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” 
“There is none good but Ong, that is, God.” “One is your Father, 
which is in heaven.” “There is none other God but ons.” “God 
is ong.” ‘There is one God, and there is no other but He.” In that 
day Jehovah shall be King over all the earth: in that day there 
shall be ons Jehovah, and his name one;” this last passage plainly 
implying the advent of a period when the very views promulgated 
by the New Church on this head shall be universal. 

You will not-fail to perceive the central point of my position on 
the whole subject: that that Divine Essence which clothed itself 
with a material humanity in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, was 
no other then the one, exclusive, absolute, and eternal Jehovah. It 
is a position which utterly ignores, not. only the fact, but the very 


possibility, of any such tripersonal. mode of existence in the Deity 


as shall constitute a ground for ascribing the assumption of flesh and 
blood to the second of these persons in contradistinction from the other 
two. I hesitate not to affirm that such a view of the Divine nature is 


~ not only repugnant to the clearest voice of reason, but to the most expli- 


cit teaching of the Word. Where do you find any thing to warrant it! 
No passages can be cited from the Old Testament bearing more di- 
rectly on the question than those which I have already adduced, and 
these as we have seen, both admit and demand another mode of inter- 
pretation. In the Angel Jehovah we can recognize no manifestation 


i 


ia Ss x % 


38 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter IV. 


but that of Jehovah himself in his indivisible unity. We see not the 
pects: intimation of any second hypostasis or person of whom the 
theophany is predicated. Andif this be the purport of the Old Testa- 
ment, must not that of the New accord with it? If then the triper- 
sonal theory be attempted to be sustained by Scripture, it must doubt- 


less be on tke ground of inference. It is to be inferred that, asa 


Trinity is expressly taught under the threefold appellation of Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, therefore these terms must imply the distinction 
of three pesons. But this inference not only conflicts with the inspired 
declaration of the absolute unity of Jehovah, but is rendered useless 
by our previous ascertainment of the fact, that a distinction of three 
Essentials in the Godhead most perfectly consists with the idea of one 
person; thus answering all the demands .of the acknowledged doc- | 
trine of the Trinity, without doing the least violence to the genuine 
conception of the Unity. The question then is as to the priority of 


claim between an interpretation which thus recognizes a Trinity 


entirely consistent with Divine Unity, and one which is wholly at 
war with it: for this is clearly the alternative. I cannot doubt, 
indeed, that you will deny the existence of such a conflict, although 
I confess myself wholly bafiled in the attempt to see how it is to be 
avoided. On this head you will resolutely fall back upon the but- 
tress of the literal averments of Scripture and the devout acknow- 
ledgement of mystery which frowns rebuke upon the prying. re- 
searches of the human mind. Such a posture of spirit the man of 
the New Church contemplates merely as a strange psychological 
curiosity. He finds no demand made upen him to give an implicit 
credence to inspired enunciations which he cannot receive without 
admitting both sides of a contradictory proposition. He cannot 
concede, in one breath, that Jesus Christ is the supreme and only 
Jehovah, and in the next grant that he is but the second hypostasis 
of a nature which the intuitions of his own mind, in response to the 
voice of revelation, declare can admit of but one. That there are 
inferences, and those too of transcendent. moment, affecting ‘the 
whole scheme of Christian doctrine, to be drawn from the scriptural 
language in regard to the true Trinity of Jehcvah, it will be my ob- 
ject to evince in the sequel. 

At present I must be permitted to adduce from Swedenborg an- 
other paragraph fraught with most important bearings upon the ge- 
neral subject: 


“* Behold I send an angel before thee ;’ that hereby is signified the Lord as 
to the Divine Human [principte], appears from the signification of sending, 
when concerning the Lord, as denoting to proceed; in this case, to cause to 
proceed; and from the signification of angel, as denoting Him who proceeds, 
for angel in the original tongue signifies sent. Hence is the derivation of that 
expression; and by sent is signified proceeding, as may be manifest from the 
passages quoted from the Word, n. 6831. Hence it is evident that by the 
angel of Jehovah 1s meant the Lord, as to the Divine Human [principle], for 
this proceeds from Jehovah asa Father. Jehovah asa Father is the Divine 
Good of the Divine Love, which is the very Esse; and the proceeding [prin- 
ciple] from the Father is the Divine Truth from that Divine Good, thus the Di- 
vine Existere from the Divine Esse; this is here signified by angel. In like 


wy 


The Divine Humanity. | 39 


manner in Isaiah, ‘ The angel of His faces shall liberate them by reason of His 
love, and His indulgence ; He redeemed them, and took them, and carried them 


all the days of eternity, Ixiii.9. And in Malachi, ‘ Behold the Lord, whom — 


ye seek, shall suddenly come to His temple, and the angel of the covenant whom 
ye desire,’ ii. 1,2; tothe temple of the Lord is to His Human [principle]; 
that this is His temple, the Lord Himself teaches in Matthew, chap. xxvi. 61; 
and in John, chap. u. 19, 21, 22. In the Church it is said, that out of three 
who are named, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, there exists one Divine [being 
or principle], which is also called one God; and that from the Father pro- 
ceeds the Son, and from the Father by the Son proceeds the Holy Spirit: but 
what it is to proceed or to go forth is as yet unknown. The ideas of the 
angels on this subject differ altogether from the ideas of the men of the Church 
who have thought about it; the reason is, because the ideas of the men of 
the Church are founded upon three, but of the angels upon one. The reason 
why the ideas of the men of the Church are founded upon three is, because 
they distinguish the Divine [being or principle] into three persons, and ‘attri- 
bute to each special and particular offices. Hence it is that they can indeed 
say, that God is One, but in no case think otherwise than that there are Three, | 
who by union, which they call mystical, are One; but thus indeed they may _ 
be able to think that there is one Divine [being or principle], but not that 
there is one God; for in thought the Father is God, the Son God, and the 
Holy Spirit God; one Divine [being or principle] is one by consent, and is 
thus unanimous, but one God is altogether one. What is the quality of the 
idea, or what is the quality of the thought, which the man of the Church has 
concerning one God, appears manifestly in the other life, for every one brings 
along with him the ideas of his thought; their idea or thought is, that there 
are ttiree gods, but that they dare not say gods but God; a few also make one 
of three by union, for they think in one way of the Father, in another way of 
the Son, and in another of the Holy Spirit; hence it has been made evi- 
dent, what is the quality of the faith which the Church has concerning the 
most essential of all things, which is the Divine [being or principle] Itself; 
and whereas the thoughts which are of faith, and the affections which are of 
love, conjoin and separate all in the other life, therefore they who have been 
born out of the Church, and have believed in one God, fly away from those 
who are within the Church, saying that they do not believe in one God, but in 
three gods, and that they who do not believe in one God under a human form, 
believe in no God, inasmuch as their thought pours itself forth without deter- 
mination into the universe, and thus sinks into nature, which they thereby ac- 
knowledge in the place of God. When it is asked what they mean by pro- 
ceeding, when they say the Son proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit 
from the Father by the Son, they reply that proceeding is an expression of 
union, and that it involves that mystery; but the idea of thought on the sub- 
ject, when it was explored, was no other than of a mere expression, and not 
of any thing. But the ideas of the angels concerning the Divine [being or 
principle], concerning the trine [trinwm], and concerning proceeding, differ 
altogether from the ideas of the men of the Church, by reason, as was said 
above, that the ideas of thought of the angels are founded upon one, whereas 
the ideas of the thought of the men of the Church are founded upon three ; 
the angels think, and what they think believe, that there is one God, and He 
the Lord, and that His Human [principle] is the Divine Itself in form, and that 
the Holy [principle] proceeding from Him is the Holy Spirit; thus that there 
is atrine [trinum], but still one. This is presented to the apprehension by the 
idea concerning the angels in Heaven; an angel appears there in a human 
fori; but still there are three'things appertaining to him, which make one— 
there is his internal, which does not appear before the eyes, there is the ex- 
ternal which appears, and there is the sphere of the life of his affections and 
thoughts, which diffuses itself from him to a distance ; these three [things or 
principles] make one angel. But angels are finite and created, whereas the 
Lord is infinite and increate; and inasmuch as no idea can be Lad concerning - 
the infiuite by any man, nor even by any angel, except from things finite, 


“ ne mit) fe 


hay ® “ , ‘ 


a: 


40 ~~ Letters te a Trinitarian —Letter IV. 


therefore it 1s allowed to present such an example, in order to illustrate that 
there is a trine in one. and that there is One God, and that He is the Lord, and 
no other.”-—A. C. 9303. 


You may possibly have doubts as to what is said about the differ- 
ence of angelic and human ideas on this profound subject, and say 
that you have no sufficient evidence of the fact; but if the thing 
asserted is intrinsically true, the thoughts of the angels are un- 
doubtedly in accordance with it, and the intrinsic trath of what they 
are said to think is certainly in itself some evidence that they do 
think it, and consequently that Swedenborg’s assertion on the subject — 
is also true. But, after all, the grand question is rather what you 
and J ought to think on this theme, than what the angels do think, 
although there is every likelihood that if we think as we ought, we 
shall think as they do. If there is any truth of stupendous concern 
to mortal man, it is that which we are now considering. ‘The scrip= 
tural idea of God enters into the inmost vitalities of Christian faith, 
and it is vain to think of enjoying him in heaven so long as the idea 
of his nature and perfections does not conform to the essential verity, 
for the true idea of God, with wis appropriate affection, is the very 
medium of conjunction with him, and this conjunction is the essential 
element of heavenly bliss.* “'The reason,” says Swedenborg, “why 
there is no appropriation of good with those who do not acknowledge 
the Lord is, because for man to acknowledge his God is the first 
principle of religion, and with Christians to acknowledge the Lord 
is the first principle of the Church, for without acknowledgment 
there is no communication given, consequently no faith, thus no love; 
hence the primary tenet of doctrine in the Christian Church is, that 
without the Lord there is no salvation. Hence it is manifestly evi- 
dent, that those who do not acknowledge the Lord cannot have faith, 
thus neither can they have love to God, consequently neither can 


* «‘ Tnasmuch as the church at this day does not know that conjunction with the Lord 
makes heaven, and that conjunction is effected by the acknowledgment that He is the 
God of heaven and earth, and at the same time by a life conformable to his com mand- 
ments, therefore it may be expedient to say something on this subjeet: he who is utter- 
ly unacquainted with the sabject may possibly ask, what signifies conjunetion ? How 
ean acknowledgment and life occasion conjunction? What need is there -of sueh ac- 
knowledgment and life? May not every one be saved by a bare act of merey? What 
occasion then for any other medium of salvation but faith alone? Is not God merciful 
and omnipotent? But let such an one know, that in the spiritual world all presence is 
occasioned by knowledge and acknowledgment, and all conjunction by affection which 
js of love; for spaces there are nothing else but appearances aceordine to similarity af 
mind, that is, of affections and their derivative thoughts; wherefore, when any one 
knows another, either from fame or report, er from intercourse with him or from cone 
versation, or from ‘relationship, when be thinks of him from an idea of that knowledze 

the other becomes present, although to all appearances he weresa thousand ha Meine vad 
tant; and if any one also loves another whom he knows, he dwells with NA feo oh 
ciety, and if he loves him intimately, in one house; this is the state of all throu rhout 
the whole spiritual world, and this state of all derives its origin from hence that the Lard 
is present to every one according to love; faith and the consequent presence of the Lord 
is given by means of knowledges of truths derived from the Word, espeeially concerning 
the Lord himself there; but love and consequent conjunetion is given by a lite Aotew aie 
to His commandments, for the Lord says, § He that bath my commandments and keepeth 
them, he it-is that loveth Me, and Iwill love him, and make my abode with him,’ Joba 

xiv, 21.°—A, &, 1340. pee. . 


iaiet ish ae 


ae : 
The Divine Humanity. 41 


they be saved, which the Lord also teaches openly in John: ‘He 
_ that believeth in the Son, hath eternal life; but he that believeth not 
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth in him.” 
And again, “The reason why they who do not from faith acknow- 
ledge the Lord, have not eternal life, is because the whole heaven is 
in that acknowledgment; for the Lord is the Lord of heaven and 
earth; wherefore to those who do not acknowledge Him, heaven is 
closed; and he who does not acknowledge in the world, that is, who 
is within the Church, does not acknowledge in the other life ; such is 
the state of man after death.” The acknowledgment here insisted 
on is not a bare verbal assent to a proposition which conveys no 
definite meaning to the mind. It is an acknowledgment founded on 
a distinct intellectual perception of the truth acknowledged. No- 
thing short of this is entitled to the name. 

You will understand, also, that in these passages, and in Sweden- 
borg’s writings generally, the title “Lord” is the equivalent of 
“Jehovah,” and is the peculiar and distinctive appellation of Jesus 
Christ, than whom neither he nor his adherents know any other Je- 
hovah, or Lord, in the universe. Swedenborg has placed the follow- 
ing sentence at the very threshold of his great work, the Arcana 
Celestia, and the remark is of the utmost importance.in the perusal 
of every part of his writings :—“ In the following work, by the Lorp 
is solely meant Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, who is called 
the Lorn without other names. He is acknowledged and adored as 
the Lorp in the universal heaven, because he has all power in bea- 
ven and earth. He also commanded his disciples so to call him when 
he said, ‘ Ye call me Lorp, and ye say well, for sol am.’ And after 
his resurrection his disciples called him Lorn. Throughout all hea- 
ven they know no other Father but the Lorp, because he and the 
Father are one.” This term in Swedenborg’s writings is always to 
be understood as the equivalent of’ Jehovah.* In the New Church, 
therefore, is to be seen the incipient fulfilment of the prediction before 
adverted to: “In that day there shall be one Lorp (Jehovah), and his 
name one.” The propriety of this title in reference to Christ [ shall 
consider more at length hereafier. The use of it in this relation is in 
fact bringing forward into the Christian Church, under its last form, 
the distinguishing appellation of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testa- 
ment, the exclusive and supreme object of worship, who alone is to 
be recognized in the person of Jesus Christ the Saviour. The intro- 
duction of this name as the familiar title of Jesus, when apprehended 
in its full import, is the signal of a complete revolution in the entire 
scheme of Christian doctrine built upon the assumption of a threefold 
distinction of persons, the second of whom makes an atonement to 
the first. No such theory of atonement can possibly stand when once 
it is seen that the Jehovah of the Jew is identically one with the 
Jesus of the Christian; for one Divine Person cannot make an atone- 


* Without the above explanation, the title of the first chapter of the treatise concerning 
Heaven and Hell would seem to announce a most obvious truism, viz., “ That the Lord 
is the God of Heaven.” This assumes a new phase when it is understood as asserting 
that Jesus Christ is the God of heaven. ’ 


42 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter V. 


ment to himself. This result, however, 1 do not ask you to receive, 
till you become convinced that it is inevitable. I announce it here 
that you may have a more vigilant eye on the successive evolutions 
of the argument whose object it is to establish it. And I may re- 
mark, also, by the way, that it is easy to perceive how insuperable 
is the obstacle in the way of the Jewish mind in general to the adop- 
tion of Christianity, so long as it holds forth to them a view of the 
Divine Being so utterly at war with all the conceptions of the Deity 
which they have formed from their own Scriptures. Ido not say 


that they would readily embrace even the true doctrine of the incar- 


nation of their own Jehovah, but they must necessarily be vastly 
more scandalized by the dogma which presents him under a three- 
fold hypostasis. A Trinity of Essentials in one person they might 
possibly be led to concede; but a Trinity of persons, I believe, never; 
and who can blame them? As to anv special display of divine in- 
fluence in their behalf, so far as this point is concerned, we can of 
course have no hope of it, if the tenet itself is false, and that it is so 
we have the same evidence that we have that the doctrine of the 
Divine Unity is true; for the two we hold to be in diametrical and 


everlasting antagonism with each other. 
Yours, &c. 


LETTER ¥. 
JEHOVAH JESUS. 


DEAR SIR, 


Ir the tenor of my remarks in the preceding series of Letters shall 
have approved itself as resting upon a stable basis, we have obtained 
an important clew, not only to the true character of the Saviour, as 
‘being no other than the one only Jehovah, but also to the corrett in- 
terpretation of those numerous passages in the Old Testament 
which speak of Him as having been made visible to holy men of that 
dispensation. If I have at all succeeded in my attempted solution 
of the theophanies of the former economy, the conclusion reached 
cannot well be any other than that they were really manifestations 
of the Supreme Jehovah in his undivided person, and made through 
the medium of an angel, because they could not possibly be made 
in any other way. “The Divine itself,’ says Swedenborg, “is far 


above the heavens, not only the Divine good itself, but also the ~ 


Divine truth itself, which proceeds immediately from the Divine 
good; the reason why those principles are far above heaven, is be- 
cause the Divine itself is infinite, and the infinite cannot be conjoined 
with finites, thus not with the angels in the heavens, except by the 
putting on of some finite first, and thus by accommodation to reception.” 


Jehovah Jesus. 43 


On the ground of what I have now advanced upon the general 
subject, you will see what we are taught by Swedenborg to believe 
concerning the relation which the ancient theophanies bear to the per- 
son of Christ. They were manifestations of Him only so far as he 
was identically one and the same with Jehovah himself, regarding 
this as the title of the Supreme Godhead. For ourselves, we are 
free to say that our minds utterly fail to grasp the idea of the appear- 
ance of any Divine personage termed the “ Son of God,” who made 
himself, by anticipation, visible to the patriarchs, prophets, and holy 
men of the early ages. We know of no “Son of God,” but him who 
was born, as to his natural humanity, of the virgin mother, and who 
became a Son simply by being thus born. 

But I may here be met by the position, that the Old Testament 
does in fact contain intimations respecting the “Son of God” which 
abundantly warrant the inference of such a distinction of persons as 
I am now endeavoring to show unfounded. Justice to the argument 
requires me to advert to these passages. The result, I think, will 
show that something far more decisive is demanded by the exigencies 
of the theory against which I contend. 

The first and most prominent text adduced by Trinitarians is Ps 
ii. 7,—‘“ Thou art my Son; this day have |] begotten thee.” In regard 
to this we fully accord with Swedenborg’s interpretation. “In this 
passage is not meant a Son born from eternity, but the Son that was 
born in time; for it is a propetical Psalm, relating to the Lord who 
was to come, and therefore it is called the statute which Jehovah 
declared unto David; wherefore it. is written before in the same 
Psalm, ‘I have anointed my King over Zion’ (v. 6) ; and it follows; 
‘I will give him the nations for an inheritance’ (v. 8), and of con- 
sequence the expression, thzs day, does not mean from eternity, but 
in time; for with Jehovah the future is: present. By the Son is meant 
the Lord as to his humanity.” Are you prepared to deny this to be 
the true sense of the language of the Psalmist ? 

Another passage subsidized by theologians to the same purpose is 
Prov. xxx. 4,—“ Who hath ascended up into heaven or descended? 
Who hath gathered the wind in his fists? Who hath bound the 
waters ina garment? Who hath established the ends of the earth? 
What is his name, and what is his Son’s name, if thou canst tell ?” 
It is here supposed that these questions are affirmative of the wisdom 
and power of God, whose Son is here mentioned; but this is doubt- 
less a mistake. The questions relate to man, and imply a strong de- 
nial that any man can do these things. In the foregoing verses Agur 
confesses his ignorance, and in this verse he declares that neither he 
nor any other man else can perform or explain the works of God. 
“ What is his name or his son’s name?” i. e. what is the man’s name 
who hath done or can do these things? or what is the name of his 
son! Negative interrogations of this kind are frequent in the Serip- 
tures. 

Again, we are referred to Dan. iv. 25, where Nebuchadnezzar is 
said to have seen “one like THz Son or Gop.” This is adduced in evi- 
dence of Christ’s being a Son abstract from humanity. But it would 


44 * Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter V. 


be strange if we were required to found our faith on the testimony 
of a heathen king, a polytheist, who was then compelling men to 
idolatry, and who a little while after was driven from among men for 
his pride and contempt of the true God. To suppose that he knew 
the Son of God—that he knew him to be such abstract from human- 
ity, and yet called him a man whose form was like the Son of God— 
and farther, that he should afterwards call this same man an angel 
sent by God, as if he knew that this coequal Son of God.was also 
his servant or messenger—all this is so unnatural and so unsupported 
by the whole history, as to be altogether incredible. Besides, you 
cannot be ignorant that it is generally conceded by the learned, that 
the proper reading is, “like a son of the gods.”* It is therefore far 
more probable that by this expression he meant an angel, as he 
expressly terms him (v. 28), and if he intended a divine person, it 
was only according to the heathen mythology which abounded in 
begotten gods who were considered as subordinate divinities, and as 
coming down in the likeness of men, as the Lycaonians thought 
Paul and Barnabas were. 

Besides the above I know of no other :text in the Old Testa- 
ment which lends any support to the idea of the eternal Sonship of 
Christ. Nothing in fact can be adduced to prove him to have been 
a Son before he came in the flesh, but will, by the same course of 
argument, prove him also to have been Jesus Christ before that 
period, which is manifestly contrary to the tenor of the New 
Testament. Nothing can be more explicit than the announcement 
of Gabriel to Mary,—‘ Behold, thou shalt conceive and bear a Son, 
and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called 
THe Son or THE Most Hicu. But Mary said to the angel, How shall 
this be since I know not man? And the angel answered and said to 
her, Tue Hoty Spirir shat COME UPON THEE, AND THE POWER OF THE 
Highest SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE; Wherefore also tuat Hoxy Tuine 
that is born of thee, shall be called run Son or Gop.”+ As then we find 
no evidence of the existence of a Son of God from eternity, we see no 
ground for the opinion that such a Son was manifested in'the ancient 
theophanies, which is the same as saying that they were not mani- 
festations of what is termed the second person of the Trinity. They 
were manifestations of Jehovah, and if that term does not in itself con- 


* «It is greatly to be lamented, that so very an important mistranslation should remain 
in the English Bible to mislead the simple.: Printed too, as it is, with the word ‘* Son” 
commenced with a capital letter, none who are destitute of other means of information 
can avoid supposing, that there was a proper Son of God then existing; while no shadow 
of ground really exists for such an imagination.”—Noble’s Appeal, p. 367. 

+ “Jt is not known in the church, but that the Son of God is anvther person of the 
Godhead, distinct from the person of the Father. Thence is the faith concerning a Son of 
God born from eternity. Because this is universally received, and is concerning God, 
there is given no power or liberty of thinking about it, from any understanding, not even 
of thinking what it is to be born from eternity ; for whosoever thinks about it from the 
understanding, will surely say with himself, ‘This is above my apprehension, but still I 
say it, because others say it, and I believe it, because others believe it’ But they may 
know, that there isno’Son from eternity, but that the Lord is from eternity. When it is 
known what the Lord is, and what the Son is, one can also think from the understanding 
concerning the triune God, and not belore.”—Doct. of the Lord, 19. 


ae 


—_- 


> 


Jehovah Jesus. 45 


vey the idea of such a threefold distinction, we must seek for the 
evidence of it elsewhere, and if you know where it is to be found, I 
should be grateful fo having it pointed out. ; | 
Is it said that we are forced to recognize it in the peculiar use of the 
term “ Word” (Logos), evidently applied to Christ in his ante-incarnate 
state who was “in the beginning with God, and was God?” Yet here, 
if I mistake not, it will be easy to show that the Scriptures are still 
conversant with the same Divine Personage,. who has before been 
brought to our view under the appellation of Jehovah, and who 


was manifested, in the earlier ages of the world, and to the Jews, 


under the form of an angel. As the subject is one of deep interest 
to the theologian I shall pursue it somewhat in detail. 

You are well aware of the remarkable fact that the Chaldee Tar- 
gumists or Pharaphrasts, who were all Jews, wherever, in our version, 
there is any intimation of the visible display of the Divine glory or 
power, are accustomed to make use of the term “Shekinah,” which 
signifies dwelling or habitation, from the Hebrew 139, shakan, to dwell 
or inhubit. The derivative Shekinah is used more particularly of the 
divine presence, glory, or majesty, or of the Divine itself when said 
to be present to men, or converse with them, or to vouchsafe to them 
his sensible and gracious aid. Accordingly the following, among 
hundreds of other passages, are rendered by the Chaldee Targums of 
Onkelos and Jonathan conformably to this import of the term;— 
Ps. Ixxiv. 2, “Remember thy congregation which thou hast pur- 
chased of old; this mount Zion wherein thow hast dwelt.” Chal. 
“Wherein thou hast made thy Shekinah to dwell.” Num. x. 36, 
“Return, O Lord, unto the many thousands of Israel.” Chal. “ Re- 
turn now, O Word of the Lord, to thy people Israel, make the glory 
of thy Shekinah to dwell among them, and have mercy on the thou- 
sands of Israel.” Num. xi. 20, “Ye have despised the Lord which 
is among you.” Chal. “Ye have despised the Word of the Lord 
whose Shekinah dwelleth among you.” Hag. i. 8, “Go up to the 
mountain, and bring wood, and build the house, and I will take plea- 
sure in it, and will be glorified, saith the Lord.” Chal. * And | will 
make my Shekinah to dwell in glory.” Ps. Ixxxv. 10, “ His salva- 
tion is nigh them that fear him, that glory may dwell in our land.” 
This is distinctly explained by Aben Ezra as meaning that the 
Shekinah may be established in the land. It would be easy to mul- 
tiply passages to the same effect ad libitum, for even the voluminous 
citations of Buxtorf do not embrace a tithé of the examples of the 
usage which may be drawn from the Pentateuch alone. It is the ordi- 
nary phraseology of the Chaldee Paraphrases wherever in our ver- 
sion we meet with any-intimation of a visible display of the divine 
glory. Indeed the terms “Glory” and “ Shekinah” are evidently re- 
cognized by the Targumists as convertible terms. ; 

While this then is the current phraseology of these ancient Jewish 
paraphrases in regard to the visible manifestations of Jehovah, and 
to whom as visible (though not to the outward eye), and as dwelling 
or Shekinizing between the Cherubim, the whole worship of the 
Jewish Church was directed, it is a fact equally worthy of notice, 


46 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Leiter V. 

that the Divine Personage thus manifested is termed by them Mimra 
da-Yehovah, the Word of the Lord, of, which “Logos” is the Greek 
representative. As the Shekinah was the medium of the divine 
presence and of the declaration of the divine will, and as a voice 
inwardly audible frequently accompanied the manifestation, it was 
not unnatural that the title “ Word of the Lord,” or, by way of emi- 
nence, “The Word,” should come to be habitually applied in this 
connexion. As words, either written or spoken, are the established 
vehicle for conveying the thoughts and feelings of one human being 
to another, so it is easy to conceive that the denomination “ Word” 
should have been appropriated to what was deemed a medium ot 
imparting the divine thoughts and counsels to men. The Shekinah 
and the Mimra, therefore, are in Jewish diction terms employed. in 
most intimate connexion with those ancient divine .manifestations 
which I have indicated by the term theophanies. I shall hope to 
show in the sequel that the ideas which, in their minds,: were 
couched under these appellations were in all probability extremely 
inadequate when tried by the fundamental truth involved, yet as 
the usage itself is a fact of some moment in its relations to the 
general subject, I shall adduce, in tabellated form, a sufficient 


number of instances to illustrate it clearly. 


HEBREW. 


Gen. iii. 8, And they heard the 
voice of the Lord God walking in the 
midst of the garden. 


Ch. xxviii. 20, 21. And Jacob vow- 
ed a vow, saying, If God will be with 
me, and keep me, &c., then shall the 
Lord be my God. 


Ch. xxxv.9. And God appeared unto 
Jacob again when he came out of Pa- 
dan-aram ; and blessed him. 


Ex. xvi. 8 Your murmiurings are 
not against us, but against the Lord. 


Ch. xix. 17. And Moses brought 
forth the people out of the camp to 
meet with God. 


Ch. xxx. 6. Where I[ will meet with 
thee. 


Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. And I will set my 
tabernacle among you; and my soul 
shall not abhor you. And J will walk 
among you and be your God. 


Num. xi. 20. Because that ye have 
despised the Lord which is among 
you, 


CHALDEE. 


And they heard the voice of the Word 
of the Lord walking in the garden. 


And Jacob vowed a vow to the 
Word, saying, If the Word of the Lord 
will be my help, &c., then shall the 
Lord be my God. 


And the Word of the Lord appeared 
to Jacob a second time, when he was 


coming from Padan-Aram ; and bless- 
ed him. 


Your murmurings are not against 
us, but against the Word of the Lord, 


And Moses brought forth the peo- 
ple out of the camp to meet with the 
Word of the Lord. 


Where I will appoint for tl 
rie ppol or thee my 


And I will set my tabernacle among 
you; and my Word shall not reject 
you. And I will cause my Shekinah 


. aie among you, and be to youa 
od. 


Because ye have contemptuously 
rejected the Word of the Lord, whose 
Shekinah dwelleth among you. 


Jehovah Jesus. 


Heprew. 


Ch. xiv. 9. Only rebel not ye against 
the Lord. 


Ch. xxii. 4. And God met Balaam. 


Deut. 1. 30. The Lord your God 


which goeth before yon, he shall fight 
for you. 


Ch. i. 32, 33. Yet in this thing ye 
did not believe the Lord your God, 
who went in the way before you, to 
search you out a place to pitch your 
tents in, in fire by night, to show you 
the way ye should go, and in a cloud 
by day. 


Ch. xiii. 18. When thou shalt heark- 
en to the voice of the Lord thy God. 


47 


CHALDEE. 


But rebel not ye against the Word 
of the Lord. 


And the Word from before the Lord 
met Balaam. 


The Word of the Lord thy God, who is 
thy leader, shall fight for you. 


And in this thing ye did not believe 
in the Word of the Lord your God, who 
went as a leader before you, &c. 


If thou shalt be obedient to the 
Word of the Lord thy God. 


We have here, if I mistake not, indubitable evidence that the 
term “ Logos” or “ Word,” which in Chaldee or Rabbinical usage is 
most intimately related to the “ Shekinah,” is in fact a designation of 
the very Personage whose recorded theophanies in the Old Testament 
were made through the medium of an angel, and on grounds which 
I have previously endeavored to explain. But I have utterly failed 
in my attempted elucidations of the subject, if I have not succeeded 
in showing that this Personage is indeed no other than the one only 
Jehovah, the Supreme God, the Creater of the universe, and the ex- 
clusive object of all religious worship. What can more unequivo- 
cally establish this than the title given to Christ by the Seer of Pat- 
mos ?—“ And his name is called the Worp or God.—And he hath on 
his vesture and on his thigh, a name written, Kine or Kines anp 
Lorp or Lorps.” Who is “King of Kings and Lord of Lords” but 
Jehovah himself? Consequently, if Christ is the Word, and the 
Word is Jehovah, the inference as to his sole and absolute Divinity 
is unquestionable, and all ground for recognizing any allusion to a 
tri-personal Trinity in this title vanishes from under our feet. As no 
such distinction is implied in the term Jehovah, so none is implied in 
the term Word. 

Still I feel that, on the position which I assume, you are author- 

ized to demand somewhat of a detailed explication of the language 
_of the Evangelist in respect to the Divine Word. This I proceed to 
give, planting it, of course, on the basis of Swedenborg’s theology. 
I have already remarked that the principles of Love and Wisdom 
comprise the all of Deity. The Divine Love is the Divine Lsse, 
the Divine Wisdom the Divine Existere. So far as manifestation 1s 
concerned, this is always predicated of the latter and never of the 
former, because the Esse is always invisibly latent in the Existere. 
When we speak, therefore, of the Divine Humanity we necessarily’ 


48 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter V. 


- 


centre our thoughts upon the Existere of Jehovah, which is Wisdom 
or Truth, and from this the idea of the human principle is inse- 
parable. The “ Word” is but another name for the Divine Truth, 
predicated especially of the Son, as Divine Good is predicated espe- 
cially of the Father, and as the Divine Proceeding is predicated of 
the Holy Spirit. But I will here make Swedenborg the expounder of 
his own doctrine, the truth of which is to be determined by an appeal 
to Scripture, in its genuine sense, and not to alleged visions. 


‘From these words, ‘In the beginning, &c., it is manifest that the Lord is 
from eternity God, and that He is that Lord who was born in the world; for 
it is said, The Word was with God, and God was the Word; as also, that 
without Him was nothing made that was made; and’ afterwards, that the- 
Word became flesh, and they saw Him. That the Lord is called the Word, is 
little anderstood in the church; but He is called the Word, because the Word 
signifies divine truth, or divine wisdom; aud the Lord is divine Truth iiself, 
or divine Wisdom itself; wherefore also He is called Light, concerning which 
also it is said, that it came into the world. Because divine wisdom and divine 
love make one, and in the Lord were one from eteruity, therefore also it is 
said, ‘In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.’ Life is divine love, 
and light is divine wisdom. This one is what is meant by ‘In the beginning 
the Word was with God, and God was the Word. Wizth God. is in God, for 
wisdom is in love, and love in wisdom. Likewise in another place in John, 
‘Glorify Thou Me, Father, with thyself, with the glory which 1 had with 
thee before the world was,’(xvil. 5). With Thyselfis 7m Thyself. Wherefore 
also it is Said, that God was the Word; and elsewhere, that the Lord is in 
the Father, and the Father in Him; as also, that the Father and He are one. 
Now, because the Word is the divine Wisdom of divine’ Love, it follows 
that it is Jehovah himself, thus the Lord, by whom all things were made that 
are made; for all things were created by divine Wisdom, from divine Love.” 
—Dosct. of the Lord, 1. 


“« How the Lord is the Word, is understood by few, for they think that the 
Lord can indeed enlighten and teach man by the Word; and yet that he can- 


not hence be called the Word: but let them know that every man is his own 


love,and thence his own good and his own truth, man not being a man from 
any other source, and nothing eise appertaining to him being man. From 
this consideration that man is his own good and his own truth, angels and 
spirits are also men; for every good and truth proceeding from the Lord is in 
its form a man: but the Lord is divine good itself and divine truth itself ; thus 
He is the man himself, from whom every man is a man.”-—Swed. apud Clowes 
on John, p. 11. ie 


That by the Word in this relation is meant the Lord’s Divine Hu- 
manity, is evident from its being said that “the Word became flesh 
and dwelt among us.” This is a point which, I venture to think, I 
have established in a former letter. The Divine Humanity existing 
from eternity in “first principles,” descended, in the incarnation, 
into “last principles,” or “ ultimates,” or, as we may properly say, the 
Alpha descended into the Omega. He thus became an earthly man 
among earthly men, and became visible to the outward eye, as he 
had been visible, in the angelic form, to the spiritual eye. This is 
doubtless what is meant by the Apostle in saying that though he 
was “in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to be equa 
with God,” yet “he made himself of no reputation, and took upon 


him the form of a servant,” &c. The “form of God” is the Divine 


Jehovah Jesus. 49 


Humanity in its first principles, as it exists in the Divine nature 
from eternity. But nothing in the data on which our reasoning’ is 
founded requires the recognition of a triad of persons to make the 
Scriptural testimony intelligible or consistent. The Word js still 
the Lord, or Jehovah, in the indivisible unity of his nature, and he is 
the eternal Word, not because he is identical with an eternal Son, 
but because he is identical with the eternal Jehovah. 

But has not the title “ Word” some relation to the written Word? 
Undoubtedly it has. “Since truth is meant by the Word, by the 
Word is meant all revelation, thus likewise the Word itself or Holy 
Scripture.” This relation I cannot better present than in the lan- 
guage of Swedenborg. “He who understands these words, ‘In the 
beginning,’ &c., in their interior sense, may see that the Divine Truth 
itself in the Word which was formerly in this world, which likewise 
is.in our Word at this day, is meant by the Word which was in the 
beginning with God and which was God; but not the Word regarded 
merely as to the words and letters of the languages in which it is 
written, but as seen in its essence and life, which is from within in 
the senses or meaning of its. words and letters; from this life does 
the Word vivify the affections of that man’s will who reads it de- 
voutly ; and from the light of its life it illuminates the thought of his 
understanding ; therefore it is said in John, ‘In him (the Word) was 
life, and the life was the light of man;’ this constitutes the Word, 
because the Word is from the Lord, and concerning the Lord, and 
thus is the Lord. All thoughi, speech, and writing derives its essence 
and life from him who thinks, speaks, and writes; the man with all 
that he is being therein ; but in the Word the Lord alone is.” 

You will probably find yourself compelled to demur to this explicit 
declaration of identity between the revealed Word and its Divine 
Author, but farther reflection will scarcely fail to bring you to the 
admission of the fact. The grounds of the position I have stated in 
a somewhat formal manner in a former production (“Statement of 
Reasons,” &c.), and as the language suits my present purpose you 
will allow me to quote it: “He (Swedenborg) declares, that the 
Word is not only from the Lord, but ¢s the Lord, just as any written 
or spoken communication of a mans a form of the man himself. A 
man’s vocal speech is an emanation from the man himself; he is 
essentially 7m his utterance; and the case is not altered by its being 
embodied in written language... A letter addressed by one person to 
another, is as truly a going forth of his spirit, in the form of words, 
as if the communication were made by spirit coming in contact with 
spirit in the spiritual world. The Divine Word is the divine voice 
speaking to man, and the Divine voice is as much a form of the 
Divine being as a man’s voice is a form of his being. But the hu- 
man voice is effected by the medium of the undulations of the at- 
mosphere, which of course cannot hold in respect to the Deity. The 
aerial sound, however, in man’s case, is nothing more than a vehicle 
for conveying the thought and affection of the speaker’s mind, and 
cannot be needed for the communication of spirits disembodied. They 
then communicate by impressing themselves upon each other. Now 

4 


50 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter V. 


God is a spirit, and in our present corporeal state he comes into com- 
munion with our spirits through the medium of written speech, but 
this speech is Himself, in his essential Love and Truth, and what- 
ever is in Himself is in his speech, that is, in his Word, just as Swe- 
denborg remarks in a passage already quoted, that ‘every thought, 
speech, and writing derives its essence and life from him who thinks, | 
speaks, and writes, the whole man with his quality being in those 
things ; but in the Word is the Lord alone.’ The Word of God there- 
fore is the living Divine Truth, and is at any one moment just as 
really the present utterance, expression, or emanation of the Divine 
Being, as when flowing into the minds of the sacred penmen by 
whom it was indited, as they were moved (gpope0, acted, borne, or 
carried away) by the Holy Ghost. But if the Divine Word is the 
Divine Lord, it is impossible to conceive that his inmost affections 
and thoughts—in a word, his essential Divinity—should not be in it, 
and consequently that there should not be a depth of import entirely 
transcending the sense of the outward letter.”—-P. 118. 

In another paragraph of his writings, Swedenborg, in speaking of 
this passage in John, says; “ Inasmuch as this has been understood 
in no other way than to mean, that God taught man by the Word; 
therefore it has been explained by an expression of elevation, which 
involves that the Lord is not the Word itself: the reason is, because 
it was not known, that by the Word is meant the divine truth of the 
divine good, or, what is the same thing, the divine wisdom of the 
divine love. In what manner the Lord is the divine truth of the 
divine good, shall here also be briefly shown: every man is not a 
man from his face and body, but from the good of his love, and from 
the truths of his wisdom; and whereas man is a man from these 
principles, every man likewise is his own truth and his own good, or 
his own love and his own wisdom, and without these he is not a 
man; but the Lord is good itself and truth itself, or, what is the 
same thing, love itself and wisdom itself; and these are the Word 
which ‘in the beginning was with God, and which was God ahd 
which was made flesh.””—Div. Prov. 172. The evident intima- 
tion in this passage is, that as the most proper light in which to view 
man is in his first principles as constituted of love and wisdom, and 
apart from his bodily being, so also in regard to the Lord Kimneerr 
we are to elevate our thoughts to what he is in his essential nature. 
that is, as infinite Love and infinite Wisdom; and not only so but 
we are always to conceive of him as acting according to the principles 
of his nature.* Hence it is impossible to form any adequate idea of 


* The following extract from De Guays’ ‘‘ Letters to a Man of the World,” presents a 
striking view of the analogy between the Word of God and the word of man, considered 
as a creative agency. 

<* Man having been created in the image of God, every thing which exists in man, so 
far as he remains in the order of his creation, must be the image of something which ex- 
ists in God ; so there must be a kind of analogy between the word of Man and the Word 
of God. Let us see if this analogy confirms what has been said concerning the Word of 
God. We have said that the Word‘in its principle, or the Logos, created the universe 
that is to say, all that God has made. Is it the same with the worl of man relatively Ws 


Jehovah Jesus. 51 


the process of creation, unless it be regarded as the normal opera- 
tion of these principles. But Love and Wisdom must necessarily 
operate by emanation or influx, so that when it is said, in the pre- 
sent connexion, “that all things were made by him, and without him 
was not any thing made that was made,” we are to recognize the 
legitimate operation of the Divine Truth or Wisdom ultimating itself, 
by its own laws, in the material universe. Accordingly Swedenborg 
Says, 


“Scarce any one knows at this day that there is any power in truth, for it 
is only supposed that it is only a word spoken by some one who is in power, 
which on that account must be done, consequently the truth is only as breath- 
ing from the mouth, and as sound in the ear; when yet truth and good are the 
principles of all things in both worlds, the spiritual and the natural, by which 
principles the universe was created, and by which the universe is preserved; 
and likewise by which man was made; wherefore those two principles are 
allin all. That the universe was created by Divine Truth is plainly said in 
John, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, all 
things were made by Him.’ And in David, ‘ By the Word of Jehovah were the 
heavens made,’ Ps. xxxiil. 6; by the Word in both cases is meant the divine 
truth. Inasmuch as the universe was created by Divine Truth, therefore also 
the universe is preserved by it; for as subsistence is perpetual existence, so 
preservation is perpetual creation.”—T. C, R. 224. 


This is confirmed by the fact that the original word,  cyevero, 
egeneto, were made, does not properly signify created in its ordinary 
acceptation, but became —“ all things became by him,”—and I am 
fully prepared to accede to the views of Professor Lewis in his 
“Platonic Theology,” where he clearly intimates, in his elaborate dis- 
cussion of the distinctive sense of the verbs Ew, to be, and Fuopa, 
to become, that the true sense of creation comes very near to that of 
- generation (ysveos, genesis), or becoming.* We claim, therefore, to be 
occupying the soundest philosophical ground when we maintain that 
what is termed creation on the part of Jehovah is a process of emana- 
tion from himself, who is the first, absolute, only, self-existing sub- 
stance. Matter is the elaboration of spirit, or, in other words, spirit 
has the potency of clothing itself in material forms. The most solid 
substances on our globe are the result of the combination of gases; 
the gases, therefore, must be conceived as of prior formation; but 


all that man does? By the Word or Logos creating we understand the Divine Wisdom 
of God acting from the Divine Love or Will of God. Man’s word, analogous to the Lo- 
gos, is, then, the understanding acting from the will, or what is the same thing, thought 
acting from affection. Now it is evident that all that man does is done by his thought 
‘from his affection ; every work of man is then produced by his word Thus considered, 
the word of man is not only that which he expresses, whether by sounds and articula- 
tions, or by the physiognomy of the countenance and gestures, but moreover all that 
which is produced by him; so that this word of man is the man himself, as the Word 
(Logos) is God Himself; for will and thought are man, as Love Itself and Wisdom It- 
self are God.”—Letters, &c., 2d Series, Letter 3d. 


* This distinction is very clearly marked in our Lord’s declaration, John viii. 58, ‘* Be- 
fore Abraham was (yevecOac) Iam (etme) ;” i.e. before Abraham became. The same word 
is applied to our Lord himself as the Son of God, Gal. iv. 4, “ God sent forth his Son 
made (yevopevov) of a woman;” i. e. who became by a woman. It is in several cases thus 
translated in our, version, 


52 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter V. 


they are themselves the product of solar heat and light, and the heat 
and light of the natural sun are the effect of spiritual heat and 
light, and these are the Divine Love and Wisdom. To this then 
we come at last. We hold it to be impossible, on just grounds, to 
avoid the conclusion, that every thing created is from a spiritual 
origin, that is to say developed from the Love and Wisdom of Jeho- 
vah; and this process never ceases, because these principles ever 
energize. The creation of the universe is as truly going on at this 
moment as it was millions of ages ago, for the Divine Love and 
Wisdom can never intermit their activities.* It doubtless seems to 
our limited view, as if the work of creation were. finished, and pre- 
servation alone could now be attributed to the Most High. But sub- 
sistence is perpetual existence, and perpetual existence is perpetual 
_ereation.t If we could suppose an individual of our race to have 

been introduced upon the globe myriads of centuries ago, in some of 
the immensely remote geological periods, and to have lived out the 
common measure of human life at the present day, he would doubt- 
less have had as strong an impression of the completed state of the ter- 
restial creations as we now have. Yet the work was then going on, 
as it is still going on, by incessant changes and new combinations. 
Every thing is in the process of becoming by virtue of the same laws 
which were operative from the outset. But the cycles are so vast—— 
the sweep so boundless—the evolutions so slow—that the process to 
us seems to have become stationary. 

I return in my next, to the general subject. 


Yours, &c. 


* << Were what is spiritual tobe separated from what is natural, that which is natural 
would be annihilated. All things derive their origin in this mode, Every thing, both in 
general and in particular, is froni the Lord. From Him is the celestial principle; by 
the celestial from Him exists the spiritual principle; by the spiritual the natural; and by 
the natural the corporeal and sensual principles; and as each thus exists from the Lord, 
so also does it subsist, for, as is acknowledged, subsistence is perpetual existence. They 
who conceive otherwise of the existence and origin of all things, as do the worshipers 
of nature, who derive them all from her, have adopted such fatal principles, that the 
phantasies of the beasts of the forest may be said to possess more of truth; yet there are 
many such persons who seem to themselves to excel the rest of mankind in wisdom.”— 
A, €..175; 

+ ‘The case is with influx, as with existence and subsistence; nothing exists from 
itself, but from what is prior to Itself, thus finally all things from, the First, that is, from 
that which is, which is Esse and Existere from Itself; and also from the Same all things 
subsist, for the case is with subsistence as with existence, inasmuch as to subsist is per- 
petually to exist.”—A. C. 6040. 


roan Lars 


53 


LETTER VI 


_ JEHOVAH JESUS. | 


DEAR SIR, , 


Tue result of our investigations thus far has been, to establish the 
conclusion that all evidence is wanting which shall go to prove the 
existence of any such divided personality in the Godhead as is sup- 
posed on the tri-personal theory. The Divine appearances under the 
old economy were appearances of the absolute Jehovah himself, 


under the form of angel. 


That these appearances were preludes or 


anticipations of the Lord’s advent in the flesh, is undoubtedly true, 


but not of his 
and unipersunal Jehovah. 


advent in any other character than that of the supreme 
It becomes then a point of importance to 


establish the identity of Jesus of Nazareth with the Jehovah: of the 
Old Testament, and the most obvious mode of doing this is to show 
that the title “ Lord,” so frequently bestowed upon Christ by the New 


Testament writers, 
would not imply by this that 


is an express confirmation of this identity. [ 
such a-process of proof is absolutely in- 
dispensable to my argument, for it 


in fact follows by necessary con- 


Sequence from all that I have hitherto said, if there is any reason to 
believe that such a personage as Christ is announced in the Old Testa- 
ment. Still, as the evidence is ample, I proceed to adduce it. In 
assuming this position, however, I would not be understood to deny 


that the term “ Lord” 


is often used even in reference to Christ, in a 


lower sense, as an honorary compellation equivalent 'to “Sir? or 
“ Master,”’—a usage for the most part easily determinable from the 
context. Bat it is, in my view, equally beyond dispute, that in a mul- 
titude of passages the title in question is most unequivocally bestowed 


upon the Saviour in 
ean be no other than 


such a way as to compel the inference that he 
the Jehovah of Moses and the Prophets. As 


the settlement of a principle is the object aimed at, it will not be ne- 


cessary to multiply instances to a great extent. 
a few will probably be admitted to be proveable 
more of the same class. I present the examples 


OLtp TESTAMENT. 


Mal. iii. 1. Behold, I will send my 
messenger, and he shall prepare the 
way before me: and the Lord (Jeho- 
vah), whom ye seek, shall suddenly 
come to his temple, even the messen- 
ger of the covenant, whom ye delight 
in: behold, he shall come, saith the 
Lord of hosts. 


Mal. iii. 1. Behold, I will send my 
messenger, and he shall prepare the 
_ way before me. 


What is proved of 
of a great, many 
in parallel columns. 


New TEsTaMENT. 


Mark i. 1-3. As it is written in the 
prophets, Behold, I send my messen- 
ger before thy face, which shall pre- 
pare tly way before thee; the voice 
of one crying in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, make 
his paths straight. 


Luke i. 76. And thou, child, shalt be 
called the Prophet of the Highest, for | 
thou shalt go before the face of the 
Lord to prepare his ways. | 


ete 


B4 


Oxtp TESTAMENT. 


Is. xl. 3. The voice of him that 
erieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye 
the way of the Lord (Jehovah), make 
straight in the desert a highway for 
our God. ‘ 


Is. xliv. 6. Thus saith the Lord (Je- 
hovah), the King of Israel, and his 
Redeemer the Lord (Jehovah) of 
hosts ; | am the first, and Tam the last ; 
and besides me there is no God. 


Is. vi. 5. Then said I, Wo is me! for 
Iam undone; because I am aman of 
unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst 
of a people of unclean lips; for mine 
eyes have seen the King, the Lord 
(Jehovah) of hosts. 


Jer. xxiii. 6. In his days Judah shall 
be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely : 
and this is his name whereby he shall 
be called, the Lord (Jehovah) our 
Righteousness. 


Jer. ix. 24. But let him that glorieth 
glory in this, that he understandeth 
and knoweth me, that I am the Lord 
(Jehovah), which exercise loving- 
kindness, judgment, and righteous- 
ness, in the earth: for in these things 
I delight, saith the Lord (Jehovah). 


Zech. xii. 4. In that day saith the 
Lord (Jehovah), v. 10, they shall look 
on me whom they have pierced. 


Is. xl. 10. Behold the Lord (Jeho- 
vah) God will come—his reward is 
with him. 


Is. xliii. 3, 1]. For I am the Lorp 
thy God, the Holy One of Israei, thy 
Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ran- 
som, Ethiopia and Seba for thee. 

I, even I, am the Lorn (Jehovah) ; 
and besides me there is no Saviour. 

Is. xlv. 21. A just God and a Sa- 
viour; there is none beside me. 


Hos. i. 7. I will have mercy on the 
house of Judah, and will save them 
by the Lord (Jehovah) their God. 


Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VI. 


New TESTAMENT. 


Matt. iii. 3. Forthis is he that was 
spoken of by the prophet Esaias, say- 
ing, The voice of one crying in the 
wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the 
Lord, make his paths straight. 


Rev. xxii. 18. I (Jesus) am Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the 
end, the first and the last. 


John xii. 41. These things said 
Esaias, when he saw his (Christ’s) 
glory, and spake of him. 


1 Cor. i. 30. But of him are ye in 
Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto 
us wisdom, and righteousness, and 
sanctification, and redemption : 


vy. 31. That, according as it is writ- 
ten, He that glorieth, let him glory in 
the Lord. ) 


John xiv. 37. They shall look on 
ny (Christ) whom they have piere- | 
ed. 


Rey. xii. 12, Behold, I (Jesus) come 
quickly, and my reward is with me. 
v. 20. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 


1 Pet. iii. 18. But grow in grace, 
and in the knowledge of our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ. 

Luke ii. 11. For unto you is born 
this day, in the city of David, a Sa- 
viour, which is Christ the Lord. 


Luke ii. 11. For unto you is born 
this day, in the city of David, a Sa- 
viour, which is Christ the Lord. 


Jehovah Jesus. 55 


Oxip TESTAMENT. 


Ps. cii. 25. Of old hast thou laid the 
foundations of the earth: and the hea- 
vens are the work of thy hands. 


Is. xlv. 23. I have sworn by myself, 
_the word is gone out of my mouth in 
righteousness, and shall not return. 
That unto Me every knee shall bow, 
and every tongue shall swear. 


Ps. xxiv. 8. Who is the King of 
Glory ? the Lord (Jehovah) strong and 
mighty, the Lord (Jehovah) mighty in 
battle. 


Deut. x. 17. For the Lord (Jehovah) 


New TeEsTAMENT. 


Heb i. 10. Thou, Lord, in the begin- 
ning hast laid the foundation of the 
earth; aud the heavens are the works 


of thy hands. 


Rom. xiv. 1], 12. For we shall all 
stand before the judgment seat of 
Christ. For it is written, As I live, 
saith the Lord, every knee shall bow 
to me. 


1 Cor. ii. 8. Which none of the 
princes of this world know; for had 
they known it, they would not have 
crucified the Lord of glory. 


Rev. xvii. 14. These shall make war 


your God is God of gods, and Lord of with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall 
lords, a mighty and a terrible. overcome them; for he is Lord of 
lords, and King of kings. 


What remains from this array of testimony but a cordial resting 
in the conclusion announced by the apostle, Phil. 2, 9-11, “ Where- 
fore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which 
is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the 
earth; and that every tongue should confess that JESUS CHRIST is 
LORD, to the glory of God the Father” (i. e. Jehovah). 

IT am not aware that in the above citations there is any one as to 
which there can be any reasonable doubt that the reference is dis- 
tinctly to Jesus Christ, “the only Lord God, and (i. e. even) our Lord 
Jesus Christ.” Several of them are expressly explained of him by 
the sacred writers as the Personage to whom the title properly per- 
tains, and by parity of reasoning numerous others obviously demand 
the same interpretation. If I am warranted in assigning to them 
this reference, the conclusion that naturally yields itself is, that in 
these passages, at least, the Saviour of men is distinguished by an 
appellation the highest that can be applied to the Supreme Deity, 
and which is, in fact, usually denominated his zncommunicable name. 
The dignity of the Godhead knows no more august appellation than 
that of Jehovah, and yet nothing short of a torturing criticism can 
deny the attribution of this title to the Saviour of the world, or refuse 
to recognize in him the being justly denominated senovan JESUS. And 
to the present point of the discussion I have reserved the refer- 
ence to a passage which is perhaps entitled to carry with it more 
weight than any of the preceding. I allude to Rev. i. 8, “T am 
Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, 
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty,’— 
evidently the language of Christ, as the same declaration occurs Rev. 


as 


56 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letier VI. 


xxi, where there can be no doubt as to the speaker. The word 
Kvpwos, Kurios, Lord, here represents the Hebrew min, Yehovah which 
is compounded of the past, present, and future tense of the verb mn, 
hayah, to be, of which the following words—* which is, and which 
was, and which is to come”—are plainly a definition, while the last 
epithet “ Almighty” (ravroxearwp), answers obviously to may, tezbaoth, 
hosts, of which it is the usual rendering in the Septuagint. The two 
terms, therefore, “ Lord of Hosts,” are distinctly defined. There is 
the less doubt of this from the fact, that in the parallel passages, Is. 
xliv. 6, this title is expressly given ;-—“ Thus saith the Lord the King 
of Israel, and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts; 1 am the first, and J 
am the last; and besides me there is no God.” Now if this is: an 


assertion of the exclusive Deity of the speaker, as is evident from the’ 


language, and yet the same character is expressly claimed for Jesus 
the Saviour, can more than one inference possibly be drawn? The 
entire clause, therefore, is an explanation, for the Greek reader, of 
the Hebrew mixaz mins, Yehovah tzebaoth, or Lord of hosts, with the 
unequivocal intimation that this title belongs te Jesus Christ. By 
being the Lord, he is of necessity the Lord of hosts, as the titles are 
of equivalent import. It would seem difficult, then, to indicate any 
thing as wanting to establish completely the point for which I con- 
tend, viz. the absolute identity of Jehovah and Jesus. 

I will here adduce a passage from Swedenborg by way, not of 
simple authoritative declaration, but of confirmation, as I venture 
to regard the truth affirmed as sufficiently established from other 
sources. 


‘In the word of the New Testament, with the Evangelists and in the Apoe- 
alypse, Jehovah is nowhere named, but for Jehovah it is said Lord, and this from 
hidden causes, of which we shall speak presently. That in the Word of the 
New Testament it is said Lord instead of Jehovah, may appear evident with 
Mark: ‘Jesus said the first (primary) of all the commandments is, Hear O 
Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy thought, and with 
all thy strength, Mark xii. 29, 30; which is thus expressed in Moses; ‘Hear 
0 Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah, and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God 
with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, Deut. vi. 
4,5; where it is manifest that it is said Lord for Jehovah. In like manner in 
John: ‘Behold a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne; and 
round about the throne were four animals full of eyes before and behind, each 
had for himself six wings round about, and within full of eyes; and they said 
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Omnipotent,’ Apoe. iv. 2, 6,8; which is thus ex- 
pressed in Isaiah: ‘1 saw the Lord sitting ou a throne high and lifted up; the 
seraphim were standing above it, each had six wings; and one eried to ano- 
ther, Holy, holy, holy, Jehovah Zebaoth,’ vi. 1, 3,5, 8: there it is said Lord for 
Jehovah, or Lord God Omnipotent for Jehovah Zebaoth; that the four animals are 
seraphim or cherubim, is plain from Ezekiel, chap. i. 5, 13, 14, 15, 19; chap. 
x. 15. That in the New Testament the Lord is Jehovah, appears also from 
several other passages, as in Luke: ‘ The ange} of the Lord appeared to Zach- 
arias,’ i. 11; the angel of the Lord for the angel of Jehovah. Inthe same evan- 
gelist, the angel said to Zacharias concerning his son: ‘Many of the sons of 
Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God, i. 16; to the Lord their God, for to 
Jehovah God. Again, the angel said to Mary concerning Jesus: ‘He shall be 
great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give 
unto him the throne of David,’ i. 32; the Lord God for Jehovah God. Again: 


— 


Jehovah Jesus. - 5Y 


*Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath exalted itself 
on God my Saviour, i. 46,47; where the Lord also is for Jehovah. Again: 
‘Zacharias prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,’ i. 68; where 
the Lord God is for Jehovah God. Again: ‘The angel of the Lord stood nearthem 
(the shepherds), and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, ii. 9; the 
augel of the Lord and the glory of the Lord, for the angel of Jehovah and the 
glory of Jehovah. In Matthew: ‘Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the 
Lord, xxi. 9; chap. xxiii. 89; Luke xiii. 34; John xii. 13; in the name of the 
Lord, for in the name of Jehovah: besides many other passages, as Luke i. 28; 
chap. ii. 15, 22, 23, 24, 29, 38, 89; chap. v.17; Mark xii. 9,11. Amongst the 
hidden causes that they called Jehovah Lord, were also, that if it had been 
declared at that time, that the Lord .was the Jehovah so often mentioned in 
the Old Testament, it would not have been received, because it would not have 
been believed ; and further, because the Lord was not made Jehovah as to his 
human also, until he had in every respect united the Divine Essence to the 
human, and the human to the Divine; the plenary unition was effected after 
in the last temptation, which was that of the cross, wherefore the disciples 
after the resurrection always called him Lord, John xx. 2, 13, 15, 18, 20. 25 ; 
chap, xxi. 7, 12. 15,.16,17, 20; Mark xvi. 19, 20; and-Thomas said, ‘My Lord 
and my God,’ John xx. 28; and inasmuch as the Lord was the Jehovah, who is 
so often mentioned in the Old Testament, therefore also he said to the dis- 
ciples, ‘Ye call me Master and Lord, and ye say right, for I am, John xiii, 
13. 14, 16; by which words is signified that he was Jehovah God. That the 
Lord was Jehovah, is waderstood also by the words of the angel to the shep- 
herds, ‘Unto you is born to-day a Saviour. who is Christ the Lord’ Luke ii. 
11; where Christ is for the Messiah, the Anointed, the King, and Lord for 
Jehovah. They who examine the Word without much attention, cannot know 
this, believing that our Saviour, like others, was called Lord merely from re- 
spect and veneration, when yet he was so called from this, that he was Jeho- 
vah.”—--A, C, 2921. 


From this it appears that the common rendering of Jehovah in the 
Old Testament is by Lord in the New, and this usuage is obviously 
derived from the Septuagint where Kipus, Kurios, Lord, is employed 
in numberless instances for mins, Yehovah. Thus, for instance, as a 
sample of multitudes of similar cases, Ps. Ixxiii. 18, “ Thou, whose 
name alone is Jehovah, art the Most High in all the earth.” Ex. vi. 
9, “I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the 
name of God Almighty (Shaddai) ; but by my name Jehovah was [| not 
known to them.” In these passages the original for Jehovah is ren- 
dered in the Septuagint by Lord, and as the New Testament writers 
followed this version, they undoubtedly by this title understood the 
proper name of God, Jehovah. Moreover, it is made very clear both by 
Pearson (Creed, p. 234) and Hengstenberg (Christology, vol. 1. p. 
161-187), that the ancient Jews attributed the name Jehovah to their 
expected Messiah. Thus the former adduces the following remark- 
able testimony from Rabbinical sources ;--“The Scripture calleth 
the name of Messias, Jehovah our righteousness.” “God calleth the 
Messias by his own name, and his name is Jehovah.” “ What is the 
name of the Messias? R. Abba said, Jehovah is his name.” But it 
is well known that the Jews worshiped but one God in one person, 
and if Jesus Christ was the true Messiah, they at least could never 
have regarded him as the second of a trinity of persons, for by the 
term Jehovah they could never have understood any other than the 
one Supreme Deity. 7 


58 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VI. ye 

The result of the whole, if I am not mistaken, is, that the title 
“Lord” (Kurios), though like its Hebrew counterpart Adon, Adonai, 
often used as a mere term of civil respect, has, in the New Testament 
usage, when spoken of the Saviour, the dominant import of supreme 
divinity. The Lord Jesus Christ is Jesus Christ the true and only 
Jehovah, and as Jehovah is one without distinction of persons, so not 
the slightest trace of any such distinction can be properly recognised 
in any thing that is revealed of the character and offices of Christ. 

As to the objection to this view founded upon his economical re- 
lations to the great scheme of redemption, in which he speaks of him- 
self, and is represented by the sacred writers, as sent by the Father— 
as doing the Father’s will and not his own—as inferior to the Father 
—as praying to him—as receiving glory and honor from him—all 
this will form the subject of future communications, in which | shall 
endeavor to show its entire consistency with everything hitherto ad- 
vanced in respect to the absolute unity and unapproached supremacy 
of his nature. : 

To one grand result of the whole discussion I cannot but here ad- 
vert. You will readily perceive that the same train of evidence 
which makes the Jehovah of the Old Testament the Jesus of the 
New, makes, of course, the Jesus of the New the Jehovah of the 
Old. It therefore establishes a perfect identity of Divine person and 
unity of worship, in the true Church, from Adam down to the pre- 
sent day. The very same Being, in his immutable grandeur, is pre- 
sented to our contemplation in every period of the Divine dispen- 
sations, so that by christianizing the heathenism of Pope’s—“Jehovah, 
Jove, or Lord,” and reading it “Jehovah, Jesus, Lord,’—we recognize 
under the triple denomination the one God whose worship hallowed 
the garden of Eden, and the temple of Jerusalem, and still conse- 
crates the true churches of Christendom. We have at once also a 
satisfactory clew to all such passages as the following :—* Esteem- 
ing the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in 
Egypt.”—* The rock that followed them was Christ.” “ Neither let 
us tempt Christ as some of them tempted, and were destroyed by 
serpents.” This title is indeed proleptically employed, but after the 
evidence above adduced there would seem to be no room to doubt 
the identity of the person. It was clearly he who was “to come 
forth from Judah, a Ruler of Israel ; whose goings forth have been 
from of old, from everlasting ;” i. e. as we believe to be the true 
import of the words, whose manifestations—-whose prelusory theo- 
phanies—-have been from of old, from the earliest periods of recorded 
time. 

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has been therefore the mani- 
fested God from the remotest ages of human history. This one and 
immutable God, devoid of all personal distinction, is the august 
I AM, or self-existent Deity, who was before Abraham, and who re- 
vealed himself to Moses at the burning bush, proclaiming the name 
of Jehovah as his “memorial for ever.” That this being is identical- 
ly the same with the Jesus of the New Testament, the predicted 
Messiah of the Jews, is the grand paramount truth of the inspired 


Jchovah Jesus. | 59 


oracles, the denial of which leaves those divine documents shorn of 
their essential glory and the hopes of human redemption a very 
mockery. Who remains to accomplish it, when the language affirm- 
ing a God made flesh, though no more expressive language ascertains 
the existence of a God at all, is frittered away in forced and jejune 
explanations aiming to obliterate the idea of theanthropism from the 
minds of men?* We can indeed find some apology for this extreme 
of the humantarian, in the equally gross error of the tripersonal, 
dogma, revolting no less to Scripture than to reason, but we scruple 
not to say that the reaction from that violent position has transcended 
its legitimate limit, and that the mind of Unitarian Christendom must 
oscillate backward to the point where it is met by the sublime annun- 
ciation of Unity and Trinity 2m one person, and that Person “the 
Word made flesh and dwelling among us.” This, we are persuaded, 
is the common ground on which the Unitarian and the Trinitarian 
must eventually meet; and as there must be mutual recession, so 
there must be mutual concession. The Trinitarian now claims what 
the Unitarian can never admit, and what he ought not to admit—the 
doctrine of three persons. The Unitarian now denies what the 
Trinitarian can never forego, and what he is entitled to insist upon— 
the supreme and absolute divinity of Jesus Christ. The fatal error 
of Trinitarians has been to argue the Divinity of Christ on grounds 
that supposed a Trinity of Persons § that of Unitarians, to maintain 
the Unity of the Godhead in the denial of the Divinity of Jesus. Alas! 
for the almost infinite mischiefS wrought to the entire scheme of 
Christianity by the use of the word “persons.” It is this unhappy 
term, more than any thing else, which has thrown these two portions 
of Christendom into such direct antagonism with each other. We 
cannot, however, but deem it matter of felicitation that a way is 
opened, through the sublime developments of the New Church, for 
the making of the twain one. Swedenborg has shown how the two 
systems may harmonize their respective truths, and that in such a 
way as at the same time to secure, in the most eminent degree, all 
the practical interests of the Christian life, and it would be a weak- 
ness unworthy of both parties to suffer the mere force of prejudice 
against his name to neutralize the promptings to a union so devoutly 
to be wished. 

I close my Jetter with an extract from this illuminated teacher of 
the last ages. 


‘Because the Lord, by the passion of the cross, fully glorified his Human, 
that is, united it to his Divine, and thus made his Human Divine, it follows, 
that He is Jehovah and God, also as to both. Wherefore inthe Word, in many 
places, He is called Jehovah, God, and the Holy One of Israel, the Redeemer, 


* <¢ The Divine itself, the Divine Human, and the Holy Proceeding, are the same as 
the Lord, and the Lord the same as Jehovah. There are none who separate this Trine 
which is in One, but they who say that they acknowledge One Supreme Being (Ens), 
the Creator of the universe, which thing is forgiven those who are without the Church ; 
but they who are within the Church and say thus, do not in fact acknowledge any God, 
whatever they may profess or suppose; still less do they acknowledge the Lord.”—A. 
GC. 2156. 


60 | Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VI. 


Saviour, and Former.. .. . From these passages it may be seen, that the Di- 
vine of the Lord, which is called the Father, and here Jehovah and God, and the 
Divine Human which is called the Son, and here Redeemer and Saviour, also 
Former, that is, Reformer and Regenerator, are not two but one; for not only 
is it said, Jehovah God aud the Holy Oue of Israel, the Redeemer and Saviour ; 
but also it is said, Jehovah the Redeemer and Saviour; yet also it is said, 
‘] am Jehovah, and beside Me there is no Saviour. From which it mani- 
festly appears, that the Divine and Human in the Lord are one person, and 
that the Human is also Divine; for the Redeemer and Saviour of the world 
is no other than the Lord as to the Divine Human, which is called the Son: for 
redemption and salvation constitute the proper attribute of his Human, which 
is called merit and righteousness; for his Human endured. temptations and the 
passion of the cross, and thus by the Human He redeemed and saved. Now 
because, after the union of the Human with the Divine in Himself, which was 
like that of the soul and body in man, there were no longer two but one per- 
son, according to the doctrine of the Christian world, therefore the Lord, as to 
both, is Jehovah and God; wherefore it is sometimes said, Jehovah and the 
Holy one of Israel, the Redeemer and Saviour, at other times, Jehovah the 
Redeemer and Saviour, as may be seen from the passages above quoted. It 
is said, the Saviour Christ; Luke 11. 10,11; John iv. 42. God and the God of 
Israel, the Saviour and Redeemer; Luke i. 47; Isaiah xiv. 14, 15; liv.5; Psalm 
Ixxvili. 45, Jehovah the Holy Oue of Israel, the Saviour and Redeemer ; 
Isaiah xl. 14; xh. 3, 11, 14, 15; xlviii, 17: xlix. 7;-liv. 5...Jehovah, the 
Saviour, Redeemer, and Former; xliv.6; xlvii. 4; xlix. 26; liv.8; xiii. 16; 
Jeremiah |. 34; Psalm Ixxvin. 35; cxxx. 7,8; 2 Samuel xxii. 2,3. Jehovah, 
God, the Redeemer and Saviour, and besides Me there is no other; Isaiah xliii. 
11; xliv. 6; xlv. 14, 15, 21, 22; Hosea xiii. 4.°——Doct. of the Lord, 34. : 


‘‘ That God and Man in the Lord, according to the doctrine, are not two, but 
one person, and altogether one, as the soul and body are one, appears clearly 
from many things which He said; as, that the Father and He are one; that 
all things of the Father are his, and all his the Father’s ; that He is in the 
Father, and the Father in Him; that all tliings are given into his hand; that 
He has all power; that He is the God of heaven and earth; that whosoever 
believes in Him has eternal life; and further, that the Divine and Human 
ascended into heaven, and that, as to both, He sits at the right hand of -God, 
that is, that He is Almighty; and many more things which were adduced 
above from the Word, concerning his Divine Human, which all testify that 
Gou 1s one as well in person as in Essence, in whom is a Trinity, and that that God is 
the Lord. ‘The reason why these things concerning the Lord are now for the 
first time made publicly known, is, because it is foretold in the Revelation, | 
xxi. and xxii. that a new church should be instituted by the Lord, at the end 
of the former, in which this should be the primary thing. This church is 
what is there meant by the New Jerusalem, into which none can enter, but 
those who acknowledge the Lord alone as God of heaven and earth. And 
this I can aver, that the universal heaven acknowledges tie Lord alone ; and 
that whosoever does not acknowledge Him, is not admitted into heaven ; for 
heaven is heaven from the Lord. This acknowledgment itself from love and 
faith, eauses all there to be in the Lord, and the Lord in them, as the Lord him- 
self teaches in John: ‘Iu that day ye shall know, that Iam in my Father, 
and ye in Me, and | in you,’ xiv. 20. And again: ‘ Abide in Me, and | in you. 
[am the vine, ye are the branches; he that abideth in Me and I in him, the 
same bringeth forth much fruit; for without Me ye cannot do any thing. If 
a man abide not in Me, he is cast out;’ xv. 4-6; xvii. 22, 23. That this was 
not seen from the Word before, is, because, if it had been seen, still it would 
not have been received.”—ZJb, 60, 61. 

Yours, &e. 


The Incarnation. | 61 


LETTER VII. 


THE INCARNATION. 


DEAR SIR, 


Tus results already reached in the foregoing discussion, though 
highly momentous in themselves, still leave many important phases 
of the subject unconsidered. The conclusion announced—I trust on 
legitimate and unimpeachable grounds—that Jesus of Nazareth is 
the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Lord of the universe, the one 
only and true God, in whom is concentrated a Trinity of Essentials 
indicated by the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is doubtless, if 
sound, the fundamental fact of the revelations contained in the Bible ; 
and yet it is a conclusion which must stand in perfect consistency 
with every other truth relating to his person and work, as the author 
and accomplisher of redemption. To this department of the subject, 
I now address myself, and I feel impelled to offer a general remark 
in regard to such a course of reasoning as that in which I have been 
thus far engaged, viz., that if, on the whole, fairly and legitimately 
conducted, and the mind recognizes the truth of the result, we are 
authorized to abide by it. We are not required to forego our con- 
clusions simply because we do not clearly perceive, at the present 
moment, how they may be made to consist with other results which 
seem to be of equal validity and yet of adverse bearing. Such an 
apparent conflict of issues ought doubtless to enforce the most rigid 
requisition of evidence in support of a conclusion that seems satis- 
factory, though, to our own minds, coming short of demonstration ; 
but if upon the whole we see no way of avoiding it, and that if 
there be any yielding, it must be on the other side; then we say that 
the true course is to adhere firmly to what is firmly established, and 
to rest in the assurance that the seemingly opposite view may, when 
more fully apprehended, be seen entirely to harmonize with it. If, 
for instance, the process of proof in regard to the absolute identity 
of Jehovah and Jesus is fairly beyond question, then a moral com- 
pulsion rests upon us to interpret those passages of the Word, which 
seem to hold a different language, in a sense consistent with that 
unity of Divine essence and person which we have previously cer- 
tified to our own minds. J am well aware of the difliculty that you 
will doubtless find, in the outset, in your attempts to solve the appar. 
ent problem which our main position sets before you. The grand 
ideal which you have formed of the design and genius of the Chris- 
tian system, involves as an essential element, a certain disjunction 
and duality of the Father and the Son, which is virtually annulled in 
the view that I have now presented, so that you feel that its adoption 
would be not so much a modification, as a total subversion, of all 
your most cherished theories in regard to the redemption and salva- 
tion of men. You perceive at a glance, that the established dogma 


- 


62 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VII. 


of vicarous atonement sinks at once out of sight when the position 
is admitted, that Jesus Christ is as truly the Father as the Son, which 
of course he must be if he is the veritable Jehovah, and which, in 
the sequel, [ shall show still more clearly that he is. This result, if 
admitted, cannot fail to give a violent shock to your pre-conceptions, 
and it would not be strange, if under the first effects of the concus- 
sion, your faith should so “ reel like a drunken man” that you should 
find yourself for a time desperabund, and ready to renounce the hope 
of ever attaining the truth on the most momentous of all themes. 
But cooler reflection will restore the equilibrium of reason and re- 
ligion. It is impossible for any honest mind to remain in an attitude 
of permanent rebellion against a clear and irresistible induction 
drawn from both the spirit and the letter of the Holy Oracles. In 
the present ease, I will venture to say that you will find every attempt 
abortive to array before yourself a stronger body of evidence in 
support of the common doctrine of atonement than | have above pre- 
sented of the supreme and exclusive Godhead of Jesus Christ, and 
as surely as this is received as true, so surely will that doctrine be 
renounced as false, for the two cannot possibly stand together. If the 
Deity exists in one person he cannot, in that person, as I have already 
remarked, make an atonement to himself. 

What remains then but to attempt to show, that all the sublime 
ends of redemption may be more fully attained, and the Divine per- 
fections be far more gloriously displayed, on the ground which I have 
assumed than upon that which is made the basis of the current theo- 
logy of the church? This is what I have ventured to propose to 
myself in the sequel of these letters. Whether I shall do justice to 
the theme, or even to my own imperfect views of it, I am not a little 
in doubt. But that there is a great truth in relation to the subject, 
which is intrinsically capable of presentation, I am altogether satis- 
fied, nor ought I perhaps to despair of exhibiting it in an intelligible. 
form, if | have succeeded thus far in stating the preliminary argu- 
ment out of which the ultimate results legitimately grow. 

The aim of my preceding elucidations has been to evince that our 
adorable Lord and Saviour, being Jehovah in unity, exists, in his. very 
nature, in a Divine Humanity, the manifestation of which, prior to 
the advent in the flesh, could only be rendered possible by the as- 
sumption of an angel as a medium. The angel thus employed was 
not necessarily any particular angel with whom the Divine Being 
was more permanently connected than with any other individual of 
the angelic order. The Divine influx merely infilled the created an- 
gel, who thus became, as it were, a body to that measure of the 
essence of Jehovah which for the time pervaded it as a soul, and 
appeared and spake through it. The ontological grounds of this I 
have already developed, and a secondary reason for renewing the 
mention of it here, is, to introduce a remarkable passage from Watts’ 
“Glory of Christ as God-Man,” which—with the abatement of his 
idea respecting the angel as the pre-existing human soul of Jesus, 
and therefore permanently united with the Supreme Divinity, and 
also with the understanding that by the term angel is meant a real 


The Incarnation. 63 
created angel temporarily assamed—exhibits a most striking approxi- 
mation to the truth as it regards the real relation subsisting between 
the visible angel and the informing Deity. He is replying to an ob- 
jection which he thus states ;—* Though it should be allowed that 
God was present with this angel, and resided in him, and spake 
by him, yet is this sufficient to make a personal union between 
God and the angel? or is it ground enough to say that God and 
the angel were one complex person?” This objection he proceeds to 
answer. 

“The most common and the most familiar idea that we have of a 
complex person is human nature or man, who is made up of a soul 
and body. Let us now consider whether most of those mutual rela- 
tions or communications between soul and body which render man a 
complex person are not found in this glorious person composed of the 
great God and this angel. Has the body of a mana nearer relation 
to his soul than any other body in the world? So had this angel a 
nearer relation to God than any other creature whatsoever. Is the 
soul said to enhabit the body, or reside in it constantly during the 
whole term of life? So did God constantly reside in this glorious 
angel. Does the soul influence the body to its chief human actions? 
So did God influence this angel. Is the body the constant and imme- 
diate instrument of the soul, whereby it speaks and acts and conveys 
its mind tomen? Such was this angel to the Great God who dwelt 
in him. Is the body obedient to the volitions: of the indwelling soul? 
Much more is this angel to the indwelling God. Is the soul imme- 
diately conscious of many of the motions of the body?) Much more 
is God immediately conscious of every motion, action and occurrence 
that relates to this angel? Are the properties and actions of the 
body sometimes attributed to the soul, and the properties and actions 
of the soul sometimes to the hody in the common language of men? 
So in the language of Scripture the names, title, and properties of 
the great God are attributed to this angel; the appearances, © 
speeches, voice, words, motions, and actions of this angel are attri- 
buted to God. And if man upon these accounts be called a complex 
person, made up of soul and body, for the same reason we may sup- 
pose that the Great God and this angel of his presence make up a 
complex person also ; and this is called a personal union.”— Watts on 
Glory of Christ, p. 67, 68. 

This, as I have remarked, is a wonderful approximation to the truth 
according to the New Church view of the subject, and the man of 
that church can hardly refrain from imagining to himself the cordial 
delight with which such a spirit would have welcomed revelations so 
well calculated to clear up the mysteries of the Divine nature with 
which his mind was evidently deeply oppressed. All that is necessary 
to bring this view into a very strict accordance with the truth, is to 
consider the angel as an angel, and to divest the relation set forth of 
the permanency which he attributes to it. 

It was Jehovah, then, in his Divine Humanity, who appeared in 
the ancient theophanies, and these appearances were pre-intimations 
of his subsequent coming in the ultimates of our earthly humanity. 


gay Letters to a Trinitartan.—Letter VII. 


The temporary intermediation of an angel, who was of course a man, 
gave a kind of sensible demonstration of the fact, but the procedure 
was all along in “ first principles,” and it was reserved for the “ful- 
ness of times,” to realise the actual result of the Lord’s advent in 
the flesh. In the consideration of this stupendous event, our atten- 
tion is naturally drawn to two distinct branches of the subject; (1) 
The mode of its accomplishment; (2) The ends to be answered by it; 
on both which | shall be constrained to be somewhat full. I shall 
count also upon your indulgence for the rather copious extracts from 
Swedenborg. 

In entering upon an attempted explanation of the mode of the in- 
carnation, | would fain shield myself from the charge of rudely in- 
vading the region of mystery. The apostolic declaration, “ Great is 
the mystery of godliness; God manifest in flesh,” will naturally rise 
up to your mind, and perhaps throw around it a sphere of repellency 
towards the least approach to a solution of the deep arcana which en- 
viron the subject. But I may plead as a sanction to the attempt the 
fact, which you cordially admit, that such an incarnation has actually 
taken place. I am not arguing the antecedent possibility or proba- 
bility of such an amazing occurrence. It has already passed into 
the category of things transpired. It stands emblazoned as the par- 
amount fact of all human, if not of all Divine, history. Its occur- 
rence is the glory of earth, and the wonder of heaven. The only 
question in regard to it, is, whether there be any presumption—any 
unlawful prying into things hidden from mortal ken—in humbly 
endeavoring to bring our knowledge, such as it is, of the Divine na- 
ture, to bear on the nature of the great fact, with the view to learn 
how far the mode of it may be brought within the compass of our 
intelligence. I do not see that this is by any means forbidden, espe- 
cially as after all our researches there will remain an immense re- 
siduum of absolute verity which will be for ever incomprehensible to 
our finite faculties. Yet we come, I think, to the inquiry with signal 
advantages 1f what we have already remarked as to the constitution 
of the Divine nature be conceded to be true. The cardinal tenet of 
the New Church, that Jesus is Jehovah, that Jehovah is one, and that 
a Divine Humanity is involved in the very essence of his being, pre- 
pares us to yield a more facile credence to the asserted fact of this 


eternal Humanity’s having become incarnate in time, or, in other. 


words, of its having “passed from first principles to last.” Our con- 
ceptions of the subject are, moreover, somewhat aided by the views 
above advanced respecting the emanation-theory of creation, accord- 
ing to which we learn that the Divine influx in its descent continu- 
ally tends to clothe itself in material embodiments, giving form and 
expression to the spiritual principle from which they are derived, 
Still, a measureless remove must for ever separate all other mani- 
festations of the Divine agency from that which we are called to 
contemplate in the incarnation of Jehovah; and we only refer to 
them as casting some collateral gleams of light upon a subject inevi- 
tably obscure to us, under whatever aspect it be viewed. 

For myself, | am unable to perceive what advance can be made 


—————— 


The Incarnation. 65 


towards a correct apprehension of the theme before us, except by 
divesting ourselves entirely, at the outset, of the prevalent idea of a 
Trinity of persons. This idea is an effectual closure of the mind 
against all access to the light of truth. The inference—for, as I have 
shown, it is nothing more—that it was the second person of the God- 
head who assumed our nature, completely vacates all just and Scrip- 
tural conceptions of the wondrous fact.* If there is any intelligible 
sense in the inspired declarations as to what is to be believed on this 
subject, it is that Jehovah himself, in the unity of his person, conde- 
scended to become incarnate, and in so doing did not more assume 
our nature than ultemate his own, for our nature is human, because 
his is infinitely so.t But what is the true idea which is to be formed 
of Jehovah? Let our illumined author speak in reply. 


“ That by God and Jehovah in the Word was understood the Lord, was not 
known to the Jewish church, neither is it known at this day to the Christian. 
church: that the Christian church has not known this, is because it has dis- 
tinguished the Divine into three persons: whereas the ancient church, which 
was after the flood, and especially the most ancient church, which was be- 
fore the flood, by Jehovah and God understood no other than the Lord, and 
indeed the Lord as to the Divine Human. They had knowledge also concern- 
ing the Divine Itself which is the Lord, and which He calls his Father; but 
concerning that Divine Itself which is in the Lord, they were not able to think, 
but concerning the Divine Human, consequently they could not be conjoined 
to another Divine, for conjunction is effected by thought which is of the under- 
standing, and by affection which is of the will, thus by faith and by love; for 
when the Divine itself is thought of, the thought falls as into a boundless uni- 
verse, and so is dissipated, whereby is no conjunction; but it is otherwise 
when the Divine itself is thought of asthe Divine Human. They knew also, that 
unless they were conjoined with the Divine, they could not be saved: on this 
account the Divine Human was what the ancient churches adored, and Jeho- 
vah also manifested Himself with them in the Divine Human; and the Divine 
Humanwas the Divine itself in heaven, for heaven constitutes one man, which 


.* “Tt is believed that God, the Creator of the universe, begat a Son from eternity, and 
that this Son descended and assumed the Human, to redeem and save men; but this is 
erroneous, and falls of itself to the ground, while it is considered that God is one, and that 
it is more than fabulous in the eye of reason, that the one God should have begotten a 
Son from eternity, and also that God the Father, together with the Son and the Holy 
Ghost, each of whom singly is God, should be one God. This fabulous representation is 
entirely dissipated, while it is demonstrated from the Word, that Jehovah God himself 
descended, and became Man, and also Redeemer.”—T. C. R. 82. 

+ ‘The reason that the Lord’s internal man, which is Jehovah, is called a man, is, 
because no one is a man but Jehovah alone. For ‘man’ signifies, in the genuine sense, 
that Esse from which man originates. The very Esse from which man originates is Di- 
vine, consequently, is celestial and spiritual; without this Divine celestial and spiritual, 
there is nothing human in man, but only a sort of animal nature, such as the beasts have. 
It is from the Esse of Jehovah, or of the Lord, that every man is a man; and it is hence 
also that he iscalled a man. The celestial which constitutes him a man, is that he should 
love the Lord, and love the neighbor: thus he is a man, because he is an image of the 
Lord, and becanse he has that celestial from the Lord ; otherwise he is a wild beast. The 
same may further appear from this, that Jehovah, or the Lord, appeared to the patriarchs 
of the most ancient church as a man; as he did afterwards to Abraham, and likewise to 
the prophets; wherefore also the Lord deigned, when there was no longer any man upon 
earth, or nothing celestial and spiritual remaining with man, to assume the human nature 
by being born as another man, and to make it Divine; whereby also he is the only man. 
Moreover, the universal heaven presents before the Lord the image of a man, because it 
presents Him ; hence heaven is called the Grand Man, on this account especial'y, because 
the Lord is all in all therein.” —A. C, 1894. . 


66 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VII. 


is called the Grand Man, and which has been treated of heretofore at the close 
of the chapters. This Divine in heaven is no other than the Divine itself, but 
in heaven as a divine man; it is this man which the Lord took upon Him, and 
made Divine in Himself, and united to the Divine itself, as it had been united 
from eternity, for from eternity there was oneness ; and this because the human 
race could not otherwise be saved; for it could no longer suffice that the Di- 
vine itself through heaven, thus through the Divine Human there, could flow 


into human minds; wherefore the Divine itself willed to unite to itself the Di- 
vine Human actually by the human assumed in the world; the latter and the 
former is the Lord.”—A. C. 5663, 


If this be well founded, the Divine nature does not present to our 
conceptions an absolute simple, but a complex, the elements of which 
are the Divine itself in its own super-celestial esse, or the infinite 
Love, and the Divine Wisdom or Truth, related to the former as In- 
tellect ever is to Affection, which is the relation of the existere to the 
esse. The Divine Wisdom is the form of the Divine Love, and this 
form is what is more especially to be understood by the Divine Hu- 
manity existing in “ first principles,” or as the Alpha, which, in the 
incarnation, assumed to itself the Omega; for when our Lord says of 
himself, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last,” it 
is obvious that he has no respect to time, as he is without beginning 
of days or end of years. In this character of the Divine Humanity 
from everlasting, our Lord was the Word, or the Truth, as I have 
already shown, and this “ Word was made flesh,” i. e., became incar- 
nate.* The Word or Wisdom of Jehovah, indicated by the Son, 
could be made manifest, but not the Divine Love, answering to the 
Father. “That Jehovah’s appearing denotes the Lord’s Divine in 
his Human, is evident from this, that his Divine cannot appear to 
any man, nor even to any angel, except by the Divine Human; and 
the Divine Human is nothing but the Divine Truth which proceeds 
from Himself.” This proceeding of the Divine Truth from the Divine 
Good or Love, is what is otherwise expressed by the word sent, and 
the idea of sent is intimately related to angel, which, as we have 
seen, denotes the medium of manifestation prior to the advent in the 
flesh. The bearing of this will appear more clearly in the sequel, 
when we shall show that the F’ather’s sending the Son into the world 
implies, in a consistent sense, the sending himself into the world. But 
preliminary to this it is necessary to lay down the great law of gene- 
ration which is perpetually involved in all Swedenborg’s expositions 
of this profound subject. 


* <© Who does not know that the Lord was conceived from God the Father, and who 
cannot thence understand, that God the Father who is Jehovah, took upon him Humanity 
in the world, and consequently that the Humanity is the Humanity of God the Father, 
and thus that God the Father and He are one, as the soul and the body are one? Can 
any one therefore approach the soul of a man, and descend from thence into the body? 
Is not his humanity to be approached? And is not his soul addressed hereby at the same 
time? Iam aware it will be thought, How can Jehovah the Father, who is the Creator 
of the universe, come down and assume Humanity? But let these think also, How can 
the Son from eternity, who is equal to the Father, and also the Creator of the universe, do 
this ? Does itnot amount to the same thing ? It is said the Father and the Son from eternity, 
but there is no Son from eternity; it is the Divine Humanity called the Son, that was sent 
into the world,”—A. R. 743, 


% 


The Incarnation. 67 


‘To the above I shall add this arcanum, that the soul, which is from the 
father, is the very man, and that the body, which is from the mother, is not 
man in itself, but from the soul; the body is only a covering of the soul, com- 
posed of such things as are of the natural world.—Since the soul of man is the 
very man, and is spiritual from its origin, it is manifest whence it is that the 
mind, soul, disposition, inclination, and affection of the love of the father 
dwells in his offspring, and returns and renders itself conspicuous from gene- 
ration to generation. Thence it is, that many families, yea, nations, are known 
from their first father; there is a general image in the face of each descendant, 
which manifests itself; and this image is not changed, except by the spiritual 
things of the churcl. The reason that a general image of Jacob and Judah 
still remains in their posterity, by which they may be distinguished from others, 
is, because they have hitherto adhered firmly to their religious principles ; for 
there is in the seed of every one from which he is conceived, a graft or offset 
of the father’s soul, in its fulness, within a certain covering from the elements 
of nature, by which the body is formed in the womb of the mother; which 
may be made according to the likeness of the father, or according to the like- 
ness of the mother, the image of the father still remaining within it, which 
continually endeavors to bring itself forth, and if it cannot do it in the first 

generation, it effects it the following. The reason that the image of the father 
- is in its fulness in the seed is, because, as was said, the soul is spiritual from 
its origin, and whats spiritual has nothing in common with space; where- 


fore it is similar to itself in a small, as well as in a large compass.”—T. C. R. 
103. 


I have here given this law in full by reason of its vast importance 
in the present investigation, and though the principle involved comes 
fairly within the province of physiology, and may be said to demand 
proof, yet I scruple not to build upon it, not only because Swedenborg 
asserts it, after having given me reasons to warrant the most impli- 
cit reliance on his testimony, but because the presumptions in its 
favor amount very nearly, in my judgment, to positive proof. It can- 
not, I think, be doubted that there is, on the part of the father, a 
descent of the soul in its “first principles” to the ultimates of the 
body in the propagation of a human being, and that the office of the 
mother is to furnish the investment of the seminal principle or germ. 
Accordingly Swedenborg remarks, in illustration of the asserted fact, 
“that the soul is from the father, and its clothing from the mother, 
may be illustrated by things analogous in the vegetable kingdom. 
In this kingdom the earth or ground is the common mother, which, in 
itself, as in a womb, receives and clothes seeds; yea, as it were, con- 
ceives, bears, brings forth, and educates them as a mother her off- 
spring from the father."—C. L. 206. The position is at any rate 
boldly assumed by Swedenborg in the face of all physiological science, 
and may be considered as a virtual challenge to the schools to dis- 
pute its soundness. As the truth of the principle is so essential to a 
just view of the whole doctrine of the incarnation as given by him, 
we are perfectly sure he would never have hazarded the enunciation 
but upon the most indisputable grounds.* 


* Notwithstanding the general proclivity of Commentators to deny the reference of 
Jer. xxxi. 22; “©The Lord hath created (i. e. shall create) a new thing in the earth, a 
woman shall compass a man,” to the miraculous conception. I am for myself satisfied 
that no preferable explanation has ever been given. This original JA1ON, tesobeb, properly 
signifies to surround, environ, encompass, encircle, and Michaelis renders and interprets 


sek 
7 * we 


a 
+. 


68 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VII. 


But how does this law specifically apply in the case of our Lord? 
Here again we are furnished with an answer. 


! 

“That Jehovah himself descended and assumed the Human, is very evident 
in Luke, where are these words: ‘Mary said to the angel, How shall this be 
done, since I know not a.man? To whom the angel replied, The Holy Spirit 
Shall come upon thee, and the virtue of the Most High shall overshadow thee ; 
whence the Holy Thing that is born of thee, shall be called the Son of God,’ 
i. 34,35. And in Matthew: ‘The angel said to Joseph, the bridegroom of 
Mary, in a dream, that which is born in her is of the Holy Spirit; and Joseph 
knew her not, until she brought forth a Son, and called his name Jesus,’ i. 20, 
25. That by the Holy Spirit is meant the Divine which proceeds from Jeho- 
vah, will be seen in the third chapter of this work. Who does not know that 
the child has the soul and life from the father, and that the body is from the 
soul? What, therefore, is said more plainly than that the Lord had his soul 
and life from Jehovah God; and, because the Divine cannot be divided, that 
the Divine itself was his soul and life? Wherefore the Lord so often called. 
Jehovah God his Father, and Jehovah God called Him his Son. What, then, 
can be heard more ludicrous than that the soul of our Lord was from the 
mother Mary, as both the Roman Catholics and the Reformed at this day 
dream, not having as yet been awakened by the Word.”—T. C. R. 82. 


Elsewhere he remarks; 


“The Lord in the Word is called Jehovah as to Divine good, for Divine good. 


is the very Divine, and the Lord is called the Son of God as to Divine truth, 
for Divine truth proceeds from Divine good, as a son from a father, and also is 
said to be born.’’——A. C. 7499. 


This is according to the universal law, that all thought or intellect 
is the product of affection. In God, angel, and man, the genesis of 
‘Truth is from Good. But we are called to advance farther in the 
direction upon which we have entered. The common doctrine of the 
incarnation, if subjected to a rigid analysis, will undoubtedly resolve 
itself into the teaching of no higher a fact than this, viz., that the 
manhood of Jesus, both soul and body, was, as it were, externally 
assumed by God--was appended or adjoined to Deity—so that the 
union between the Divine and the human in our Lord, amounted to a 
mere adjunction of one nature to the other. This, however, as we 
conceive, comes very far short of the truth, for on this ground we are 
unable to perceive how the indwelling of Jehovah in Jesus differed, 
except in degree, from that which may be predicated of Moses, or 
David, or Daniel, or Paul, with each of whom there was doubtless a 
very special presence of the Divine Being endowing them for their 
work.* . If Jesus Christ possessed a human soul, or inmost, from his 
en 
it—cizcumdabit, i. e. in utero habebit. So also Pocock, Hulsius, Schmidt, and many 
others among the earlier Christian Commentators. This interpretation, like many others, 
seems to have been yielded out of a kind of complaisance to the objections of Jews and 
other Anti-Messianists of the school of Grotius, who have been followed by the mass of 
modern German critics, The import of the passage according to Pocock is, that the Lord 
would create a new thing in the unprecedented fact of a woman’s encompassing a man— 
aman par eminence—contrary to the ordinary laws of generation. And what is this but 
a veiled announcement of the great fact of the miraculous conception ? 


* «The unition of the Divine Essence with the Human, is not to be understood as of 
two who are distinct from each other, and only conjoined by love as a father with a son, 


li tee 


The Incarnation. 69 


mother, are you prepared to define in what sense he can be affirmed 
to have been essentially Divine? It will not, I conceive, avail to 
have recourse on this point to the convenient plea of mystery, for the 
proposition. is a very plain one, and must be susceptible of a sense 
not difficult to be grasped, so far as the averment of the fact is con- 
cerned. We see, in regard to the ancient theophanies, that the assump- 
tion of an angel leaves the impression very distinct of the paramount 
presence and operation of Jehovah himself acting in and through 
him. The Divine person may be said to be translucent through the 
angelic humanity. In like manner, in the Lord’s incarnation on 
earth, it is necessary that the Deity should be equally conspicuous, 
at least to the eye of the mind, in the terrestrial man with whom he 
is conjoined, for the natural body which he here assumed stands, in 
fact, in a very similar relation to the indwelling Divinity, as did the 
spiritual body of the mediating angel to the essential Godhead which 
temporarily informed it. But let it once be assumed that he receiveda 
human soul—understanding by that term an inmost essence—-by na- 
tivity of the mother, and such a distinet Divine inhabitation be- 
comes impossible, and nothing more than the bare adjunction of 
Deity can be recoghized. Upon this ground, therefore, our Lord 
stands shorn of his essential glory, and his human principle will 
inevitably be thought of as the human principle of any other man, 
while his Divinity, though brought in contact with his humanity, will 
be viewed altogether apart from it, and ideally merged in that of the 
infinite Godhead, which is usually understood by the term Father. 
This is a virtual surrender of the great truth in question, and they to 
whom it is imputable have small cause to enter the lists with the 
Unitarians. Let once the humanity of our Lord be mentally dis- 
joined from his Divinity, and “ Ichabod” is written upon the pillars of 
the church. On this subject I will give place to higher authority. 


« Another point which the Athanasian doctrine teaches, is, that in the Lord 
there are two essences, the Divine and the Human; and in that doctrine the 
idéa is clear that the Lord has a Divine principle and a Human, or that the 
Lord is God and man; but the idea is obscure that the Divine principle of the 
Lord is in the Human, as. the soulis in the body. Inasmuch as a clear idea 
prevails over an obscure idea, theréfore most people, both simple and learned, 
think of the Lord as of a common man, like unto themselves, and in such case, 
they do not think at the same time of his Divine principle; if they think of 
the Divine principle, then they separate it in their idea from the Human, 
and thereby also infringe the unity of person. If they are asked, where 
is his Divine principle? they reply, from their idea, In heaven with the 


(ee ee ee ey carr Tek Ga MAE DO > ie” Da be fl MAR SACLE CEES Ie 2 EE aaa aT 
when the father loves the son, and the son the father, or when a brother loves a brother, 
or a friend a friend ; but it is a real unition into oneg so thet they are not two but one, as 
the Lord also teaches in several places.” —A. C, 3737. 

«* With respect to the union of the Lord’s Divine Essence with his Human, and of the 
Human with the Divine, this is infinitely transcendant; for the Lord’s internal was Jeho- 
vali Himself, thus life itself; whereas man’s internal is not the Lord: thus neither life, 
but a recipient of life. There was wnion of the Lord with Jehovah, but there is no wnton 
of man with Lord, but conjunction. The Lord from his own proper power united himself 
witli Jehovah, wherefore also he was made righteousness; but man’s conjunction Is never 
effected by his own power, but by the Lord’s, so that the Lord joins man to himself.”— 


A.C, 2005. 


70 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VII. 


Father; the reason why they so reply and so perceive, is, because they find a 
repugnance to think that the Human principle is Divine, and thus together 
with its Divine principle in heaven, not aware, that whilst in thought they thus 

separate the Divine principle of the Lord from his Human, they not only think 
contrary to their own doctrine, which teaches that the Divine principle of the 

Lord is in His Human, as the soul in the body, also, that there is unity of 
person, that is, that they are one person, but also they charge that doctrine 

undeservedly with contradiction or fallacy, in supposing that the Human prin- 
ciple of the Lord, together with the rational soul, was from the mother alone, 

when yet every man is rational by virtue of the soul, which is from the father. 

But that such thought has place, and such a separation, follows also from the 
idea of three Gods, from which idea it results, that His Divine principle in the 
Human is from the Divine of the Father, who is the first person, when yet it 

is His own proper Divine principle, which descended from heaven and assumed 

the Human. If man does not rightly perceive this, he may possibly be led to 
suppose, that his begetting Father was not one Divine principle but threefold, 

which yet cannot be received with any faith. In a word, they who separate 

the Divine principle from His Human, and do not think that the Divine is in. 
His Human as the soul in the body, and that they are one person, may fall 

into erroneous ideas: concerning the Lord, even into an idea as of a man se- 

parated from a soul; wherefore take heed to yourselves lest you think of the 

Lord as of a man like yourself. but rather think of the Lord as of a man who 

is God. Attend, my reader! when you are perusing these pages, you may be 

led to suppose, that you have never, in thought, sepa ated the Divine prinei- 

ple of the Lord from His Human, thus neither the Human from the Divine; 

but, I beseech you, consult your thought, when you have determined it to the 

Lord, whether you have ever considered that the Divine principle of the Lord 

is in His Human as the soul inthe body? Rather have you not thought, yea, 

if you are now willing to make the inquiry, do not you at present think of 
His Human principle separately, and of His Divine principle separately? And 

when you think of His human principle, do not you conceive it to be like the 

human principle of another man, and when.of His Divine principle, do not 

you conceive in it your idea, to be with the Father? I have questioned great 
numbers.on this subject, even the rulers of the church, and they have all re- 

plied that itis so; and when I have said, that yet it is a tenet taught in the 
Athanasian creed, which is the very doctrine of their church concerning God 
and concerning the Lord, that the Divine principle of the Lord is in His Human 
as the soul in the body, they have replied, that they did not know this : and 

when I have recited these words of the doctrine, ‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, the 

Son of God, although He be God and man, yet there are not two but one 
Christ; one altogether by unity of person; since as the reasonable soul and 
body are one man, so God and man is one Christ ;’ they were then silent 
and confessed afterwards, that they had yot noted these words, being indig- ~ 
nant at themselves for having so hastily, and with so careless an eye, exam- 
ined their own doctrine.”—A. E. 1104. 


To the same effect, he observes in another place, that “they who 
think of the Lord’s Humanity and not at the same time of his Divin- 
ity, will on no account admit the phrase “Divine Humanity ; for 
they think separately of his Humanity, and separately of his Divinity, 
which is like thinking of a man separately from his soul or life, 
which, however, is not to think of aman at all; still less is it an 
adequate way of thinking of the Lord.” | 

We have here, then, if we mistake not, the grand cardinal truth of 
all Divine revelation—* God (i. e. Jehovah) manifest in the flesh ;” 
not God merely adjoined to the soul and body of a human being like 
ourselves, but the true God truly incarnated in a tenement of flesh 
and blood received, not by ordinary generation, but by ordinary na- 


The. Incarnation. 71 


tivity, from the virgin womb of Mary. “That the Lord had Divinity 
and Humanity, Divinity from Jehovah the Father, and Humanity 
from the virgin Mary, is well known. Hence it is, that he was God 
and Man, and that he had a Divine Essence and a Human nature, 
the Divine Essence from the Father, and the Human nature from the 
Mother ; and hence he was equal to the Father with respect to the 
Divinity, and less than the Father with respect to the Humanity. 
And further, this Human Nature was not transmuted into the Divine 
Essence, neither commixed with. it ; for the Human Nature cannot be 
transmuted into the Divine Essence nor can it be commixed therewith. 
Nevertheless, by our doctrine we maintain that the Divinity assumed 
a Humanity, that is, united itself to it, as the soul is united to its 
body, so that they are not two, but one person.” 

This we believe to be the true Doctrine or THE Lorp, or the doc- 
trine respecting the Lord, and of such transcendant importance do 
we regard it, that we scruple not to subscribe with all our hearts to 
Swedenborg’s declaration, that “the essential of all doctrines is to 
acknowledge the Divine Human of the Lord.” Nay, we are ex- 
pressly taught by him that the cordial recognition of this doctrine is 
that which really constitutes the Lord’s Second Coming. “ By the 
Lord’s advent is not understood’ His advent in person, but that he 
will then reveal Himself in the Word, that He is Jehovah, the Lord 
of heaven and earth, and that He alone is to be adored by all who 
will be in His new church, which is meant by. the New Jerusalem; 
for which end also He hath now opened the internal or spiritual sense 
of the Word, in which sense the Lord is everywhere treated of: this 
also is what is understood by His coming in the clouds of heaven 
with glory. Inasmuch as He Himself is the Word, as He is called in 
John, therefore the revelation of Himself in the Word is His advent.” 
He comes in the revelation of His own essential glory as God-Man, 
Jehovah Jesus, Creator, Redeemer and Regenerator—a revelation 
made in connexion with the establishment of the Church of the New 
Jerusalem, as it is in this Church only that the doctrine in question is 
received in its genuine purport. “That there is in the Lord a three- 
fold principle, namely, the Divinity Itself, the Divine Humanity, and 


. the Divine Proceeding, is an arcanum from heaven and is revealed 


for the benefit of those who shall have a place in the Holy Jerusa- 
lem.”—-H. D. 997. For the inferential bearings of this averment 
upon the theological views or the moral state of others, we are not 
responsible, as we plant ourselves simply upon the instrinsic truth of 
the position, and if any truth has a train of just and inevitable con- 
sequences, we cannot reject the truth simply because we cannot dis- 
pose of the consequences entirely to our minds. In respect to the 
system, however, in which the present doctrine holds so prominent a 
place, we do not regard it as a harshly exclusive or denunciatory sys- 
tem, though very emphatic in its affirmations, and I propose, in the 
winding up of my discussion, to offer some remarks on the moral 
aspects of the subject, which may tend to correct certain unfavorable 
impressions on this score, that have probably arisen in the minds of 
some of my readers. 


’ « 


72 Letters to a@ Trinitarian.—Letter VII. 


In the following paragraph, Swedenborg 1s relating the conversa- 
tion of certain spirits in the other life. In the perusal [ beg you will 
make as much or as little account as you please of his assertions, on 
the score of the reality of this intercourse with spirits. The grand 
question is rather what the Truth says on this subject, than what | 
they are alleged to have said, yet, as 1 have before remarked, the 


evidence that they did say it, is undoubtedly enhanced in roa 
to the evidence of its being intrinsically trae—The spirits were from 
some other earth in the universe. ah 


“It js wellto be observed, that the idea which any person entertains con- 
cerning any thing, m another world is presented to the life, and thereby every 
one is examined as to the nature of his thought and perception respecting 
the things of faith; and that the idea of the thought eoneerning God is the 
chief of all others, inasmuch as by that idea, if it be genuine, conjunetion is 
effected with the Divine Being, and consequently with heaven. They were 
afierwards questioned concerning the nature of their idea respecting God. 
They replied, that they did not conceive God as invisble, but as visible under » 
a human form; and that they knew him to be thus visible, not only from an 
interior pereeption, but also from this circumstance, that he has appeared to 
them as a man; they added, that if, according to the idea of some strangers, 
they should conceive God as invisible, consequeutly without form and quality, 
they should not be able in any wise to think about God, imasmuch as such an 
invisible principle falls not upon any idea of thought. On hearing this, it was 
given to tell them, that they do well to think of God under a human form, 
and that many on our earth think in like manner, especially when they think 
of the Lord; and that the ancients also thought according to this idea. I 
then told them concerning Abraham, Lot, Gideon, Manoah, and his wife, and 
what is related of them in our Word, viz., that they saw God under a human 
form. and acknowledged him thus seen to be the Creator of the Universe, and 
called him Jehovah, and this also from an interior perception; but that at this 
day that interior perception was lost in the Christian world, and only remains 
with the simple who are principled in faith 

( Previous to this discourse, they believed that our company also consisted 
of those, who were desirous to confuse them in their thoughts of Ged by an 
idea of three; wherefore on hearing what was said, they were affected with 
joy, and replied that there were also sent from God (whom they then called 
the Lord) those who teach them concerning Him, and that they are not willing 
to admit strangers, who perplex them, especially by the idea of three persons 
in the Divinity, inasmuch that they know that God is one, consequently that 
the Divine Principle is One, and not consisting of three in unanimity, unless 
such threefold unanimity to be conceived to exist in God as in an angel, in 
whom there is an inmost principle of life, which is invisible and which is the 
ground of his thought and wisdom, and an external prineiple of life which is 
visible under the human form, whereby he sees and acts, and a proceeding 
principle of life which is the sphere of love and of faith issuing from him 
(for from every spirit and angel there proceeds a sphere of life, whereby he is 
known at a distance) ; which proceeding principle of life, when considered as 
issuing from the Lord, is the essential Divine Principle which fills and con- 
stitutes the heavens, because it proceeds from the very Esse of the life of love 
and of faith; they said, that in this, and in no other manner, they can per- 
ceive and apprehend a threefold unity. When they had thus expressea them- 


‘selves, it was given to me to inform them, that such an idea concerning a 
threefold unity agrees with the idea of.the angels concerning the Lord, and 
that it is grounded in the Lord’s own doctrine respecting himself; for he 
teaches that’ the Father and himself are One; that the Father is in Him and 
He in the Father; that whoso seeth Him seeth the Father; and whoso believ- 


eth on him believeth on the Father and knoweth the Father; also that the 


. - The Incarnation. "73 


Comforter, whom he calls the Spirit of Truth, and likewise the Holy Ghost, 
proceeds from Him, and doth not speak from himself but for Him, by which 
Comforter is meant the Divine Proceeding Principle. It was given me fur- 
_ ther to tell them, that their idea concerning a threefold unity agrees with the 
Esse and Existere of the life of the Lord when in the world: the Esse of his 
life was the Essential Divine Principle, for he was conceived of Jehovah, and 
the Esse of every one’s life is that whereof he is conceived; the Existere of 
life derived. from that Esse is the Human Principle in form; the Esse of life 
of every man, which he has from his father, is called soul, and the Existere of 
life ietice derived is called body ; soul and body ‘constitutes one man; the 
likeness between each resembles that which subsists between a principle 
which is in effort [conatus], and a principle which is in act derived from effort, 
for act is an effort acting, and thus two are one: effort in man is called will, 
and effort acting is called action: the body is the instrumental part, whereby 
the will, which is the principal, acts, and the instrumental and principal in 
acting are one; such is the case in regard to soul and body, and such is the 
idea which the angels in heaven have respecting soul and body; hence they 
know, that the Lord made his human principle divine by virtue of the divine 
principle in himself, which was to him a soul from the Father. This is agree- 
able also to the creed received throughout the Christian world, which teaches, 
that ‘Although Christ 1s God and man, yet he is not two but one Christ ; yea, he is 
altogether one and a single Person; for as body and soul are one man, so also God and 
man ts one Christ. ”—E. U. 158. 


But the question which you will urge as paramount to all others 
is, whether the view now presented finds adequate, warrant in the 
Scriptures fairly and legitimately interpreted. This question, of 
which I fully acknowledge the claims, I shall consider at length in 
my next. 

Yours, &e. 


LETTER VIII. 
THE INCARNATION. 


DEAR SIR, : 

Ir’ would not perhaps be possible to announce any proposition 
fraught with more momentous consequences to the interests of re- 
vealed truth, than that which I have thus far endeavored to establish, 
viz., that Jesus Christ is the true and only God, the Creator and 
Governor of the Universe, one with Jehovah, and comprising within 
his own Divine Person the three Essentials of the Godhead, denomi- 
nated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. How rich the discovery to the 
Christian, that that Being whom he had been taught to view simply 
as his Saviour, in some secondary character, is indeed no other than 
the Supreme Deity in the most absolute oneness of his nature, and 
not merely a proper, but the only proper, object of religious worship 
and adoration! With this view of our Lord’s character firmly rooted 
and grounded in his mind, he knows no Father or Holy Ghost in the 
least degree separate from the person of Christ, and offers no prayer 


“is 


74 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VIII. 


to any other being. The sum total of all that he knows or acknow- 
ledges of God, is concentrated in Jesus of Nazareth alone. This is 
“the true God and our Saviour, whom to know aright is eternal life.” 
Such an assurance is as the blaze of a fresh revelation pouring its 
beams upon the dazzled eye-sight, and the soul awakes to the expe- 
rience of a new-born joy in contemplating the Eternal Deity as 
dwelling in him who dwelt in human flesh and who accomplished his 
earthly sojourn in the land of Judea. The “root out of dry ground,” 
becomes the “ plant of renown,” and he who was “ without form and 
comeliness,” becomes “fairer than the sons of men,” his ineffable 
human beauties fading away into the inconceivable splendors of the 
Godhead. Discarded for ever from his mind is that chaos of con- 
fasion which had hitherto beset him in his attempts to put an intelli- 
gible sense upon the language of the creeds which represent God as 
subsisting in three persons, and Christ virtually in two.* The day- 
dawn of truth has at length risen upon the obscurities and mystifica- 
tions of his faith, and he has ceased to be perplexed by the subtleties: 
of the Trinitarian or the bald negations of the Unitarian dogma. He 
beholds the clear development of the Unity and Trinity of the Divine 
Nature, harmonizing all the discords of the established symbols of 
Christendom, and leaving intact the literal and spiritual integrity of 
the inspired Word. The perception of this glorious truth cannot fail 
to constitute an era in the experience of every soul that is visited by 
it, and from its inmost depths it must echo forth the response of the 
believing Thomas, “ My LORD and my God” 

The testimony in proof of this grand position I have adduced in 


* <The reason why the Lord is not acknowledged when his Divine principle is not 
acknowledged in His Human 1s, because in such case He is not regarded as God, but only 
as a man, who is not able to save: but whereas it is still believed from the Athanasian 
creed, that the Lord is the Son of God born from eternity, and His Divinity equal to the 
Divinity of the Father, and yet they separate His Human principle from ‘His Divine, it 
follows, that they distinguish the Lord as it were into two persons, which they call na- 
tures, so that the Lord is one as the Son of God from eternity, and another as the Son of 
Mary ; and whereas they thus distinguish the Lord, no one cansapproach Him, except he 
will approach him as one person, when he approaches him as God, and as another per- 
son, when he approaches Him as man, Such an idea concerning the Lord has been en- 
tertained from the first foundation of the church, as may appear from the writings of the 
fathers, and afterwards from those of their descendants. This division of the Lord in the 
church from its beginning, arose from the Word not being understood ; for where the Fa- 
ther is mentioned by the Lord, it was believed to be the Divine principle distinct from His 
Human, when, nevertheless, it manifestly appears in Matthew and in Luke, that the Lord 
was conceived of the Essential Divine principle which is called: the Father, and conse- 
quently that that Essential Divine principle is in His Human as the son is in its. body, 
and the soul and.body are one person: and what is wonderful, the Athanasian creed, 
which is universally received in the Christian world, teaches this in express terms, and 
yet scarce any one attends to it therein; that they do not attend to it has been made evi- 
dent to me from this circumstance, that many with whom I have conversed after death, 
both Jearned and unlearned, have said that they did not know it, but that they thought of 
the Son of God from eternity as of a divine person above His Human, sitting at the right 
hand of God the Father: likewise also that they had not attended to the words of the Lord 
which declared that the Father and He are One, likewise that the Father is in Him and He 
in the Father. From these considerations it may appear that the church has not acknowl- 
edged the Divine principle of the Lord in His Human, from its beginning; and that this 
is what is signified by the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world.” —A. E. 
S07. 


The Incarnation. | 15 


copious measure in tne preceding Letters. But I must have a very 
inadequate idea of the tenacity with which fixed opinions are held, 
were I to suppose that all objections would yield at once even to any 
amount of evidence that might be adduced upon the subject. So in- 
veterate is the grasp laid upon our faith by the sermon, the cate- 
chism, and the hymn-book, which have always embodied our theo- 
logy—so reluctantly is wrung from us the concession that the church 
of the past has failed to seize the most fundamental of all truths, and. 
that such long lines of holy synods, erudite fathers, “ angelical 
doctors,” godly divines, learned laymen, the piously simple, and. 
“devout women and children not a few,” have disappeared from the 
earth with their spiritual vision filmed by an error so gross—that we 
must be under an equal delusion to imagine that such a result will 
be acquiesced in without an internal renitency of the most vigorous 
kind. It is a strong man armed who keeps the house that is invaded 
by the doctrines of the New Church. There is much more than the 
pride of opinion at stake. There are multitudinous ¢terests in- 
volved, around which every form of partisan weaponry will rally and 
bristle to ward off the menacing peril. The breaking down of sects, 
the making bonfires of libraries, the acknowledgment of the heavenly 
mission of Swedenborg, are not among the pleasing objects of con- 
templation, and truth finds but a heartless welcome when its en- 
trance turns so many occupants out of doors. But apart from this, 
I do not doubt that there are those who will be deterred from a ready 
assent to my previous conclusions, from a lingering but honest fear 
that they grow rather out of a certain vein of theosophic speculation 
than from the fair and unforced interpretation of the sacred text. 
Upon this head | am conscious of deep anxiety, for as the Divine 
Word is all in all with the man of the New Church, as it 1s with 
Swedenborg himself, we cannot give ear for a moment fo any doc- 
trinal proposition which will not stand the test of the Word legiti- 
mately expounded. In pursuance, therefore, of the intimation in my 
last, ] resume the thread of my discussion at the point where it con- 
nects itself more especially with the Scriptural testimony. 

That a veritable Trinity, under the threefold designation of Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost, is to be recognized in the Divine nature, isa 
point, on which you and I can of course have no debate. The only 
question between us is, whether this Trinity is a Trinity of persons 
in any proper use of language. For myself, I have no idea of distinct 
persons which does not involve that of distinct consciousness, nor 
can | conceive that three distinet Divine consciousnesses should not 
constitute three distinct Divine Beings, however conjoined by unan- 
imity of counsel; in other words, that they should not constitute 
three Gods. There is something, in fact, so palpable in this—it 
presses down with so much weight upon the general consensus of the 
human mind—that it is no wonder that the word persons has occa- 
sjoned such trouble to theologians, that, like Prof. Stuart and others, 
they should have been anxious to get rid of it. But as this could not 
be decently effected, nothing has remained but to refine upon it, til] 
‘t has become evacuated of its genuine import, while the ruling idea 


76 | ‘Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VIII. 


still underlies the doctrine, and works out its legitimate measure of 
mischief in the conceptions of Christendom. ‘The consequence is, 
that while in controversy the Trinitarian will not allow himself to 
‘be bound to the vindication of the term, in practical operation, the 
tenet itself, still retains its efficiency and closes the mind against the 
access of all higher views. My object thus far has been to propound 
a higher view, and I see not why it should fail to command assent, 
provided it can be shown to be in accordance with the fairest con- 
struction of the oracles of truth. Let us then bring it to the test. 

The doctrine is that the Father became incarnate in the person of 
the Son. But the Father isthe Divine esse or Love inseparably united . 
with the Divine ewxistere or Truth. Now although all truth is a pro- 
ceeding or evolution from love, yet the generating love is necessarily 
tn the truth as its life and soul; consequently the Divine Love or the 
Father must have been in the Divine Truth or the Son, however it 
were that the Son was the object visibly manifested to the eyes of | 
men. Accordingly Swedenborg says that although Jehovah, the 
Creator of the universe, descended as the Divine Truth and assumed 
the Human, in order to our redemption, yet that in so doing he did 
not separate the Divine Good or Love. “'That God, although he de- 
scended as the Divine Truth, still did not separate the Divine Good, 
is evident from the conception, concerning which it is read, that ‘The 
virtue of the Most High overshadowed Mary ;’ and by the virtue of 
the Most High is meant the Divine Good. The same is evident from 
the passages where he says that the Father is in Him, and He is in 
the Father; that all things of the Father are His; and that the Father 
and He are one; besides many others: by the father is meant the 
Divine Good.” Now I feel wholly at liberty to put the question, 
whether, if what I have previously affirmed of the constitution of the 
Divine nature be in itself true, it does not necessarily follow that 
this Statement is also true, or, in other words, that the Father was 
essentially though invisibly present in the Son, as the esse is always 
present in the eaistere? And was he not thus most veritably one 
with Him as the true Jehovah incarnate ?* Let this be a little farther 
explained by our author. 


‘There are two things which make the essence of God, the Divine Love 
and the Divine Wisdom; or, what is the same, the Divine Good and the Di- 
vine Truth. These two in the Word are meant also by Jehovah God; by Je- 
hovah, the Divine Love or the Divine Good, and by God, the Divine Wisdom 
or the Divine Truth ; thence it is, that, in the Word, they are distinguished in 
various ways, and sometimes only Jehovah is named, aud sometimes only God ; 
for where it is treated of the Divine Good, there it is said Jehovah: and where 
of the Divine Truth, there God; and where of both, there Jehovah God. That 
Jehovah God descended as the Divine Truth, which is the Word, is evident in 


* < All who belong to the Christian Church, and are under the influence of light from 
heaven, see and discern the Divine Nature in the Lord Jesus Christ; but such as are not 
under the influence of the light from heaven, see and discern in him only the Human 
Nature; when, nevertheless, the Divinity and the Humanity are so united in him as to 
make one person 3 for so he declares himself, ‘ Father, all mine are thine, and thine are 


mine? "—D, N. J. 289. 


The Incarnation. ar 


John, where are these words: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made by Him, and 
without Him was nothing made that was made. And the Word became flesh, 
and dwelt amongst us’ (i. 1, 3, 14)."—T. C. R. 85. 


We will now take a class of passages represented by the follow- 
ing,-—“I came forth from the Father and came into the world.” “J 
proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he 
‘sent me;” “The Father loveth you, because ye have believed that I 
came out from God.” How is this language to be fairly understood? 
It must surely have a meaning consistent with what we know to be 
the nature of God. If we fix our thoughts upon the simple material 
humanity of our Lord, he came forth from the womb of the virgin by 
a nativity similar to that of other men. Does this exhaust the mean- 
ing of the text? If understood solely in this sense, how did he pro- 
ceed and come forth from the Father otherwise than do all, other 
men? May we not all say in the words of Job, “Did not he that 
made me in the womb, make him? And did not one fashion us in 
the womb?” Is it not clear that something higher than mere natural 
nativity is here intended? What is it? “Who shall declare his 
generation?” Do you say that as he had no human father, it is an 
allusion to the miraculous conception? [ven granting this, still the 
question is not answered. What was it that came forth from the 
Father? The body indeed was generated from the maternal sub- 
stance, but the soul which animated the body was not from her, as 
the soul is evermore from the father. The soul, or inmost principle 
of our Lord, was from Jehovah himself, and therefore essentially di- 
vine. But as the divine essence. is not divisible, it is impossible, I 
think, to conceive that Divinity could proceed from Divinity, except . | 
as Truth proceeds from Good, or the ewistere from the esse. Is any 
other kind of proceeding consistent with a just view of the intrinsic 
nature of Deity? Can we hesitate to assent to the truth of Swéden- 
borg’s remark, that “from the Divine Good, which is the Father, 
nothing can proceed or come forth, but what is Divine, and this which 
proceeds or comes forth, is the Divine Truth, which is the Son.” As 
to any kind of idea of the proceeding by the Son, or sending by the 
Father, which implies a local sojourn, as when in this world an am- 
bassador is sent abroad to a foreign court, you will at once unite 
with me in rejecting it altogether as wholly inconsistent with the 
nature of the subject. As God is a Spirit, and as whatever is pre- 
dicated of Him must consist with spiritual attributes, so the proceed- 
ing forth of the Son from the Father must indicate something con- 
gruous to the properties of such a Being. I submit it then to your 
decision, what else can be gathered from this language than that our 
Lord, as the Divine Truth, proceeded from the Father as the Divine 
Good; consequently, as these principles cannot subsist apart from 
each other, that there is a consistent sense in which, as Swedenborg 
says, the Lord, by means of the assumed Human, sent hunself into 
the world. If it was Jehovah who became incarnate, and if in Je- 
hovah is the eternal Father, how can this inference be avoided? 
Nor in fact is the direct Scriptural testimony very remote from this. 


78 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VIII. 
y | 

Zech. ii. 10, 11, “Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for lo, J come, 
and [ will dwell in the midst of thee, saith :the Lord (Jehovah) ; and 
many nations shall be joined to the Lord (Jehovah) in that day, and 
shall be my people; and I well dwell in the midst of thee, and thou 
shalt know that the Lord of Hosts hath sent me unto thee.” Here it is 
clear that Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, is both sender and sent. The 
same is evident from a previous portion of the same chapter, v. 8, 9, 
“For thus saith the Lord of hosts: After the glory hath he sent me 
unto the nations which spoiled you: for he that toucheth you, touch- 
eth the apple of his eye. “For behold, I will shake my hand upon ~ 
them, and they shall be a spoil to their servants: and ye shall know 
that the Lord of hosts hath sent me.” The Lord of hosts is here 
evidently the speaker, and yet he is at the same time represented as 
being sent by the Lord of hosts. | 

Thus, too, when Jehovah says to Moses, “Behold, Isend an angel 
before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place 
which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke 
him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is 
in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I 
speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adver- 
sary unto thine adversaries. For mine Angel shall go before thee, and 
bring thee unto the Amorites, and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, 
and the Canaanites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and I will 
cut them off;” we are not to conceive of the angel as any divine 
person separate from Jehovah, but merely as a medium through 
which Jehovah’s presence was manifested, as 1 have already had oc- 
casion to explain it. His sending an angel was, therefore, sending 
Himself, for that it was the supreme Jehovah, in His own person, 
who conducted the chosen people from Egypt, is again and again 
* affirmed in the sacred record. Whatever, then, be the idea attached 
to the term sending in this connexion, it must be such as to consist 
entirely with the established unity and unipersonality of the Divine 
nature; and if this language may be properly employed in reference 
to the manifestation of Jehovah through an angelic medium, with the 
same propriety may it be employed in reference to his manifestation 
through the medium of the assumed Humanity. It must inevitably 
be a sending of himself in either case. So, on a smaller scale, when 
a man writes and publishes a book, he may be said to send his. 
thoughts into the world; but he really sends himself, because his 
affection and thought, which are in his book, are in fact himself. 

Again, the language of our Lord in Luke, xi. 13, is so peculiar, 
that without assuming it as an indubitable proof of the doctrine | am 
now advocating, I still feel at liberty to refer to it as worthy of 
special notice in the present connexion ; “If ye then being evil know 
how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your 
Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” The 
original exhibits the reading, xécw pad ov 6 Tario 6 & otoaves, how much more 
shall the Father that (is) from heaven give, §c. This form of appel- 
lation in reference to the Father occurs nowhere else .in the New 
Testament. There the usual phraseology is, & ovpavas, in heaven, in- 


The’ Incarnatvon. 79 


stead of & oipavs, from heaven. Why is not the inference fair that 
this expression really conveys an allusion to the assumed Humanity 
in the person of the Saviour, who with the utmost propriety might 
be called the Father (the Divine Good) from heaven, and from whom 
also proceeds the Holy Spirit (or Divine Truth) here adverted to? 
The intimation need not be any less valid for being somewhat veiled. 
I am aware that the commentators are here also ready with their 
-glosses and evasions by which to render pointless every form of 
speech that enforces the recognition of a new aspect of truth. They 
remark that éoteas, from heaven, is here equivalent, to oipanis, 
heavenly, “as often elsewhere.” But this “elsewhere” I have not 
been able to find; on the contrary, I am persuaded that not a single 
instance, apart from the present, can be adduced from Matthew to 
the Revelation, where the phrase vipat, does not fairly imply 
some kind of descent or proceeding from heaven, as truly so as in 
Paul’s expression—* The second man is the Lord from heaven 
(Kops é& oipavos),” which is undoubtedly tantamount to Jehovah from 
heaven, and this is in effect the same with the Father from heaven in 
the passage before us, for who is the Father from heaven, i. e. who 
descended from heaven, but Jehovah God incarnated and manifested 
in the person of the Son? And what other inference is forced upon 
us than that of the real and essential identity of the Father and the 
Son all the while underlying the apparent divarication and duality 
of the two? If it be intrinsically true that the Father descended in 
the person of the Son, why should it be deemed incredible that the 
fact is alluded to in the passage before us ? 

The dominant idea conveyed under the term proceeding, in its re- 
ference to our Lord, is so clearly set forth and illustrated in the follow- 
ing paragraph that I do not hesitate to insert it. 


“That to go forth is to be of it, or its own, is evident from what goes before 
and from what follows, and also from the spiritual sense of that expression, 
for to go forth or to proceed in that sense, is to present oneself before another 
in a form accommodated to him, thus to present oneself the same only in an- 
other form; in this sense, going forth is said of the Lord in John; ‘Jesus said 
of himself, I proceeded forth and came from God,’ vill. 42. ‘The Father loveth 
you, because ye have loved me, and have bélieved that I came forth from God: 

‘T came forth from the Father, and came into the world; again, I leave the 
world, and go to the Father. The disciples said, we believe that thou camest 
forth from God,’ xvi. 27, 28, 30. ‘They have known truly that I came forth 
from God,’ xxvii. 8. For illustrating what is meant by going forth or proceed- 
ing, the following cases may serve. It is said of truth, that it goes forth or 
proceeds from good, when truth is the form of good, or when truth 1s good m 
« form which the understanding can apprehend. It may also be said of the un- 
derstanding, that it goes forth or proceeds from the will, when the understand- 
ing is the will formed, or when it is the will in a form apperceivable to the 
‘internal sight. In like manner concerning the thought which is of the under- 
standing, it may be said to go forth or proceed when it becomes speech, and 
concerning the will when it becomes action. Thought clothes itself in another 
form when it becomes speech, but still it is the thought which so goes forth 
or proceeds, for the words and sounds, which ‘are put on, are nothing but 
adjuncts, which make the thought to be accommodately apperceived ; in like 
manner the will becomes another form when it becomes action, but still it is 
the will which is presented in such a form; the gestures and motions, which 


hes, 


» 


e 7 
é 


80 Letters to a Trinitarian —Letter VIII. 


are put on, are nothing but adjuncts, which make the will to appear and affect 
accommodately. It may also be said of the external man, that it goes forth 
or proceeds from the internal, yea substantially, because the external man is 
nothing else than the internal so formed, that it may act suitably in the world 
wherein it is. From these things it may be manifest, what going forth or pro- 
ceeding is in the spiritual sense, namely, that when it is predicated of the Lord, 
it is the Divine formed as a man, thus accommodated to the perception of the 
believing; nevertheless each is one.”—A. C. 5337 


In like manner we. infer, by parity of reasoning, that ovr Lord’s 
going to the Father was in fact no local removing of himself from 
our globe to some distant part of the universe, called heaven, but a 
simple recession, or returning, into his own essential divinity, not- 
withstanding that it was 72 appearance an ascension in the clouds of 
heaven. ape 

I could fain hope that the Seriptural testimony now adduced has 
not been suborned to the purpose of establishing a fallacious tenet of 
theology. As nothing can be clearer than the doctrine of the Divine 
Unity, and yet nothing in your view and mine more explicit than 
that of our Lord’s divinity, | have attempted so to present the subject, 
as to make the Scriptures consistent with themselves.* This must 
be done upon some ground, or the argument yielded to the Uni- 
tarians. The mere establishment of a Trinity will go but little way 
towards it ; for if the alleged Trinity be such as to subvert the Unity, 
it can never stand the ordeal to which, in this age, every doctrine of 
the Bible will be and ought to be subjected. That such is indeed the 
effect ‘of the current doctrine of a Trinity of persons is, I think, 
beyond doubt. The mind left to the freedom of reason rejects it as ‘a 
gross paralogism. The Scriptural Trinity must of necessity be such 
that the predicates of what are termed the different persons must be 
seen to be strictly applicable to one person, and to one only. The 
recognition of two or more persons discloses a state of mind in which 
the appearances of truth have gained an ascendancy over the reality of 
truth, no unusual result from making the simple letter of the Word 
the ultimate appeal, and building the strongest confirmations upon 
it. “Inthe sense of the letter,” says Swedenborg, “it appears as if 
another who is superior is meant by Jehovah, but such is the sense 
of the letter, that it distinguishes what the internal sense unites. 
There are several (things or principles) in the Lord, and all are 
Jehovah ; thence it is that the sense of the letter distinguishes, whereas 
heaven never distinguishes, but acknowledges one God with a simple 
idea, nor any other than the Lord.” Nothing therefore adverse to 
our view can be inferred from the use of terms so. distinctive as the 
personal pronouns / and Tou, for as the indubitable doctrine of the 
Divine Unity absolutely precludes any such real distinction of person, 


* On the ground of the common doctrine I believe it is impossible to assign any ade- 
quate reason why Joseph might not have been our Lord’s father as well as Mary his mo- 
ther. If he possessed a human soul from a human parent, why might not that soul have 
been propagated according to the ordinary law of generation? That doctrine makes his 
Divinity to be derived solely from the adjunction of the Divine nature to the Human, and 
how could this result have been affected by his having a human father ? 


ee a 


eT 


The Incarnation. ; | 81 


so I trust it will appear from the following extract, that the solution 
set forth makes ample provision for the use of such language with- 


out at all weakening the ground of the main position. 


“Inasmuch as all and ‘single things in heaven, and all and single things 
with man, yea, in universal nature, have relation to good and truth, therefore 
also the Lord’s Divine is distinguished into Divine Good and Divine Truth, 
and the Divine Good of the Lord is called Father, and the Divine Truth, Son; 
but the Lord’s Divine is nothing else but good, yea, Good Itself, and the Divine 
Truth is the Lord’s Divine Good so appearing in heaven, or before the angels. 
The case herein is like that of the sun; the sun itself in its essence is nothing 
else but fire, and the light which thence appears is not in the sun, but from 
the sun. This is the arcanum which lies hid in the circumstance, that the 
Lord so often speaks of His Father as if distinct, and as it were another from 
Himself, and yet in other places asserts that He is one with Himself. This be- 
ing so, and it being so evident from the Word, it is surprising that they do not, 
in the Christian world, as in heaven, acknowledge and adore the Lord alone, 
and thus one God; for they know and teach, that the whole Trine is in the 
Lord. That the Holy Spirit who also is worshiped as a God distinct from the 
Son and the Father, is the holy of the Spirit, or the holy principle which by 
spirits or angels proceeds from the Lord, that is, from His Divine Good by 
Divine. Truth, will be shown elsewhere by the Lord’s Divine mercy.”—A. C. 
3704. i 


The last sentence of the above reminds me that in order to render 
the argument complete it is necessary to exhibit the evidence that 
the Holy Spirit is no more to be considered a Divine person than the 
Son, while yet the term as truly denotes an Essential of the Divine 
nature as either that of Father or Son. In this as in every other 
part of the discussion I shall avail myself of the light shed upon the 
subject by Swedenborg. And, first, | remark that the Holy Spirit is" 
the Divine Truth proceeding from our Lord’s Divine Human subse- 
quent to his glorification, and that it is in effect the Lord himself. 
The general position is thus stated. 


“ That the Divine Truth is the Lord Himself, is evident from the considera- 
tion, that whatsoever proceeds from any one is himself, as, what proceeds 
from man, while he speaks or acts, is from his will-principle and intellectual; 
and the will-principle and intellectual constitutes the life of man, thus the 
man himself; for man is not a man from the form of the face and body, but 
from the understanding of truth, and the will of good. Hence it may be mant- 
fest that what proceeds from the Lord is the Lord.”—4. C. 9407. 


There is no principle of more importance than this, that what 
thus emanates from a being is, in fact, the being himself. We can 
see in this the ground on which an identity is asserted in the New 
Church between the Lord and the Word. Its application to the sub- 
ject in hand will be seen from the paragraph that follows :— 


“That the Comforter (Paracletos), or Holy Spirit, is Divine Truth proceeding 
from the Lord, manifestly appears, for it is said the Lord himself spake to them 
‘the truth, and declared that, when he should go away, he would send the 
Comforter, ‘the Spirit of Truth, who should guide them ‘into all truth,’ and 
that he would not speak from himself, but from the Lord. And because Divine 
Truth proceeds from the human principle of the Lord glorified, and not imme- _ 


6 oe 


82 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VIL. 


diately from his Divine itself, inasmuch as this was glorified in itself from eter- 
nity, it is therefore here said, ‘The Holy Spirit was not yet, because that Jesus 
was not yet glorified” It is greatly wondered at in heaven that they who com- 
pose the church do not know that the Holy Spirit, which is Divine Truth, pro- 
ceeds from the human principle of the Lord, and not immediately from his 
Divine, when notwithstanding the doctrine received in the whole Christian 


world teaches that,--‘As is the Father, so also is the Son, uncreate, infinite, - 


eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, neither of them is first or last, nor greatest or 
least. Christ is God and man: God from the nature of the Father, and man 
from. the nature of the mother; but although he is God and man, yet never- 
theless they are not two, but one Christ; he is one, not by changing the divine 
ity into the humanity, but by the divinity receiving to itself the humanity. 
He is altogether one, not by a commixture of two natures, but one person 
alone, because as the body and soul are one man, so God and man is one 
Christ. This is from the Creed of Athanasius. Now forasmuch as the 
divinity and humanity of the Lord are not two, but one person alone, and are 
united as the soul and body, it may be known that the Divine Proceeding,, 
which is called the Holy Spirit, goes forth and proceeds from his Divine prin- 
ciple by the Human, thus from the Divine Human, for nothing whatsoever can 
proceed from the body, unless as from the soul by the body, inasmuch as all: 
the life of the body is from its soul. And because, as is the Father so is the 
Son, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God and Lord, and neither of them 
is first or last, nor greatest or least, it follows that the Divine Proceeding, which 
is called the Holy Spirit, proceeds from the Divinity itself of the Lord by his 
Humanity, and not from another Divinity, which is called the Father, for the 
Lord teaches that he and the Father are one, and that the Father is in him, 
and he in the Father. But the reason why most in the Christian world think 
otherwise in their hearts, and hence believe otherwise, the angels have said 
is grounded in this circumstance, that they think of the Human principle of 
the Lord as separate from his Divine, which nevertheless is contrary to the 
doctrine which teaches that the Divinity and Humanity of the Lord are not two 
persons, but, one person alone, and united as soul and body. Inasmuch as 
the Divine Proceeding, which is Divine Truth, flows into man, both imme- 
diately and mediately, by angels and spirits, it is therefore believed that the 
Holy Spirit-is a third person, distinet from the two who are called Father and 
Son; but I can assert that no one in heaven knows any other Holy Divine 
Spirit, than the Divine Truth proceeding from the Lord.”—d. E. 183. 


At the risk of trespassing a little on your patience, I give ano'her 
extract which has come before me since penning the foregoing. 


“In the Doctrine of the New Jerusalem concerning the Lord, it has been 
shown that God is one in person and in essence, that there is a trinity in Him, 
and that that God is the Lord; also, that His trinity is called Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, and that the Divine from whom all things are, is called the Father, 
the Divine Human, the Son, and the Divine proceeding, the Holy Spirit. Al- 
though the latter is called the Divine proceeding, yet.no one knows why it is 
called proceeding: this is unknown, because it is also unknown that the Lord 
appears before the angels as a sun, and that heat, which in its essence is di- 
vine love, and light, which in its essence is divine wisdom, proceeds from that 
sun. These truths being unknown, it was impossible to know that the Divine 
proceeding was not divine by itself, and thus the Athanasian doctrine of the 
trinity declares that there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and 
another of the Holy Spirit: but when it is known that the Lord appears as a 
sun, a just idea may be had of the Divine proceeding, or the Holy Spirit, as 
being one with the Lord, yet proceeding from Him, as heat and light from the 
sun; Which is the reason why the angels are in divine heat and divine lightin 
the same proportion as they are in love and wisdom. No one who is ignorant 
that the Lord appears in the spiritual world as a sun, and that His Divine 


The Incarnation. — 83 


Spirit proceeds from Him in this manner, could ever know what is meant by 
proceeding, whether it only means communicating those things which are of 
the Father and the Son, or illuminating and teaching. Still, even in this case, 
there is no ground for enlightened reason to acknowledge the Divine proceed- 
ing as separately divine, and to call it God, and make a distinction, when it is 
known that God is one, and that He is omnipresent.”—D. L. § W. 146. 


This will doubtless suffice on this head, as it is less necessary to 
dwell upon the identity of the Holy Spirit with Jehovah, inasmuch 
as there will be comparatively little difficulty in admitting it, when 
once the identity of the Son with the Father is conceded, That the 
prevailing idea, in the Church, of the Holy Spirit is that of a per- 
son in some way proceeding from the Father, or from both, is 
beyond question. This is conclusively met in one of Swedenborg’s 
Memorable Relations where he was auditor to a discussion on this 
subject. One of the speakers says, “‘What then is the Holy Ghost, 
mentioned in the writings of the evangelists and Paul, by whom so 
many learned men of the clergy, and particularly of our church, profess 
themselves to be guided? Who at this day in the Christian world 
denies the Holy Ghost and his operation” Upon this, one who sat 
on the second row of seats, turned himself, and said, ‘The Holy 
Spirit is the divinity proceeding from Jehovah the Lord; you insist 
that the Holy Spirit is a person by himself and a God by himself, 
but what is a person going forth and proceeding from a person ex- 
cept it be operation going forth and proceeding? One person 
cannot go forth and proceed from another through a third, but opera- 
tion can. Or what is a God going forth and proceeding, from a God, 
but divinity going forth’ and proceeding? One God cannot go forth 
and proceed from another, and by another, but divinity can go forth 
and proceed from one God. Is not the Divine Essence one and indi- 
visible, and since the Divine Essence or the Divine Esse is God, is 
not God one and indivisible” After hearing these things, they that 
sat on the seats came to this unanimous conclusion, that the Holy 
Ghost is not a person by itself, nor a God by itself, but that it is the 
holy divine going forth and proceeding from the one only omnipre- 
sent God who is the Lord. To this the angel who stood at the 
golden table, on which was the Word, said, ‘It is well; we do not 
read in any part of the Old Testament that the prophets spake the 
Word from the Holy Spirit, but from Jehovah the Lord; and wher- 
ever the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the New Testament, it signifies 
the proceeding divinity, which is the divine, that illustrates, teaches, 
vivifies, reforms, and regenerates.” —A. R. 962. 

On the whole I see not but that I am entitled to propose the ques- 
tion, whether the view above presented of the Divine Trinity in 
Unity, is not one that fairly meets the demands of the most rigid 
exegesis of the Scriptures, and at the same time, of the most enlight- 
ened reason? Does it not adequately harmonize all the discordant 
theories which have been offered on the subject, and propose @ com- 
mon ground on which all can meet who receive the Old and New 
Testament as embodying the inspired counsels of heaven, and con- 
stituting the infallible rule of faith? While it dissolves in rational 


84. Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter VIII. 


light the alledged mystery hanging over the manner in which the 
Trini'y exists, it still leaves, without the attempt to penetrate it, the | 
mystery of the Divine Essence, of which we can only say that it is, 
while it must for ever be incompetent to created beings to compre- 
hend what ‘it is. That the expose which I have attempted, rests in 
great measure upon the asserted illumination of Swedenborg, cannot 
vacate the intrinsic evidence of truth accruing to it from its obvious 
agreement with the genuine import of Scripture. You can never 
show that the claim which he prefers is a mere nullity. There is 
nothing in the laws of the human mind—nothing in the known order 
of the Divine Providential government of the world—which abso- 
lutely forbids the expectancy of such a mission as that with which 
he declares himself to have been invested. Nor can you say with 
any justice, that his advocates are following a mere ignis fatuus in 
embracing the doctrines he has announced. It is impossible for a fair 
mind to charge with absurdity a single extract that I have given, or 
to say that the credence yielded to their truth implies a mental weak- 
ness in their recipients. “These are not the words of him that hath 
a devil or is mad.” Our calmest reason assents to his propositions 
from their self-evidencing power, nor have we the least fear that 
their soundness can be soundly impunged; and it is upon internal testi- 
mony equally strong, that we receive all parts of his amazing dis- 
closures. In regard to no feature of the system do we find the evi- 
dence less luminous or convincing. That it often contravenes estab- 
lished dogmas—that it brings against them the most emphatic 
charges of fallacy and falsity—is with us no argument of error, but 
rather the reverse. We should believe him tess if he respected them 
more. We perceive that in all cases his principles and premises 
necessitate his conclusions, and we find too that his principles, as they 
are unassailable, never are assailed by opponents, but always the 
conclusions. In the present case the fundamental principle laid down 
is that of a necessary and eternal distinction between the Esse and 
Hxistere of the Divine nature. Is not this true? What is the im-. 
port of the sublime declaration, “I am roar I am?” Is not this a 
synonim of Jrenovan, and does it not imply the absolute and un- 
derived MMsseity of the Most High? What can be more pertinent 
to this point than the striking eclucidations of Prof. Lewis in his 
chapter on the “ Philosophy of the verb To Be?” where he contends 
that en, Lam, “expresses essential, eternal, necessary, self-existent, in- 
dependent, uncaused essence or being ;” and where too he says that it 
denotes “a general and most important proposition, namely, that the 
idea of goodness is not merely relative or accidental, or the result of 
the mind’s generalization from outward facts, but an absolute and 
eternal verity; that it has an absolute existence in the Divine Mind, 
and that there is a fixed foundation for the absolute, and not merely 
relative, nature of moral distinctions.”—-(Plat. Theol., p. 171, 178). 
This is by no means remote from Swedexborg’s incessant inculcation, 
that the Divine esse is the Divine Good, of which the Divine Truth 
is the existere in form. And what is the distinction in effect between 
the two, but that between «i, to be, and yivopa, to become, which Pref. 


The Incarnation. | 85 


Lewis has‘so clearly developed, and. to which he justly attaches so 
much importance ? 3 


But having already transcended the proper limits of a single letter 
I forbear to enlarge upon the various aspects of the subject which 
invite discussion. Several points of interest to which I have hitherto 
barely alluded, will come before us hereafter for fuller consideration, 
especially the grounds on which the idea of disjunction between the 
Father and the Son has established itself in the minds of most Chris- 


tians. For the present, 1 conclude by presenting from Swedenborg, 
a kind of resumé of the whole subject. — 


‘ 


“That by the Father, when he is mentioned by the Lord, is-understood the 
Dvine Good which is in the Lord and from the Lord, is, because the Lord called 
the Divine principle which was in him from conception, his Father, and which 
was the esse of his life, to which Divine principle He united His Human, when he 
was in the world. That the Lord called this principle his Father, appears 
manifest from this circumstance, that he thought that he himself was one with 
the Father; as in John: ‘I and my Father are one.’ Again: ‘Believe that 
the Father is in me, andl amin Him’ Again: ‘He that seeth me seeth him 
thatsentme.” Again: ‘If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father 
also; and from henceforth ye knew him, and have seen him. Philip saith 
unto him, Lord, show us the Father. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so 
long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen 
me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, show us the Father ? 
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The Father 
that dwelleth in me he doeth the works. Believe me, that I am in the Father, 
and the Fatherin me” Again: ‘If ye had known me ye should have known 
my Father also.” Again: ‘I am not alone, because the Father is with me.’ 
Inasmuch as the Lord is one with the Father, therefore he also declares, that 
all things of the Father are’ his, and his are the Father’s: that all things that 
the Father hath are his; that the Father hath given all things into the hand of 
the Son; and that all things are delivered to him by the Father; that no one 
knoweth the Son but the Father, nor any the Father except the Son; also, that 
no one hath seen the Father except the Son, who is in the bosom of the Fa- 
ther, that the Word was with God, that the Word was God, and that the Word 
was made flesh. From this latter passage it is also manifest that they are 
one, for it is said that ‘the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ It 
is plain, too, that the Human principle of the Lord was God, for it is said, ‘and 
the Word was made flesh” Inasmuch then as all things of the Father are also 
the Lord’s, and inasmuch as he and the Father are one, therefore the Lord, 
when he ascended into heaven, said to his disciples, ‘ All power is given to 
me, in heaven and in earth;’ by which he taught his disciples that they should 
approach him alone, because he alone ean do all things, as he also said to them 
before, ‘Without me ye can do nothing.’ Hence it appears how these words 
are to be understood : ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh 
unto the Father but by me ;’ namely, that the Father is approached when the 
Lord is approached. Amongst many other reasons why the Lord so often 
named the Father as another, was this, that by Father, in the internal 
or spiritual sense, is understood the Divine Good, and by Son, the Divine 
ruth, each in the Lord and from the Lord ; for the Word is written by cor- 
respondences, and is thus adapted both for men and angels. The Father, 
therefore, is mentioned, that the Divine Good of the Lord may be perceived 
by the angels, who are principled in the spiritual sense of the Word ; and the 
Son of God and the Son of Man are mentioned, that the Divine Truth in like 
manner may be perceived. 

“To eit ue hash said above, it is here to be added, as an appendix, that 
if in be assumed as doctrine, and acknowledged, that the Lord is one with the 


. 


86 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter LX. 


Father, and that his Human principle is Divine from the Divinity in himself, 
light will be seen in every particular of the Word; for what is assumed as 
doctrine, and acknowledged from doctrine, appears in light when the Word 
is read. The Lord also, from whom all light proceeds, and who has all power, 
enlightens those who are in this acknowledgment. But, on the other hand, 
if it be assumed and acknowledged as doctrine, that the Divine principle of 
the Father is another principle separate from that of the Lord, nothing will 
be seen in light in the Word; inasmuch as the man who is in that doctrine 
turns himself from one Divine being to another, and from the Divinity of 
the Lord, which he may see, which is effected by thought and faith, to a 
Divinity which he cannot see, for the Lord says: ‘ Ye have never heard his 
(the Father’s) voice at any time, nor seen his form; and to believe in and 
love a Divine being, which cannot be thought of under any form, is impossi- 
ble.”—A, E. 200. 


Yours, &c. 


LETTER IX. 


THE GLORIFICATION. 


DEAR SIR, 


Tus course of the present discussion up to this point has been 
mainly devoted to the attempt to unfold the true constitution of our 
Lord’s person, both before and after the advent, and to develop the 
grounds on which the New Church holds to a Trinity in the Divine 
nature, while at the same time most strenuously rejecting the Triper- 
sonality which that doctrine has been supposed to involve. I have 
endeavored to show that a Divine Humanity pertains essentially to 
Jehovah, and that in the Incarnation this Divine Humanity “ passed 
from first principles to last.” On no other grounds do we hold such an 
incarnation to be possible, and contend, consequently, that the prevalent 
doctrine of Christendom, by ignoring the fact of such a Divine Hu- 
manity, does in effect deny the fundamental verity of the incarna- 
tion, and substitute for it the fallacy of the simple adjunction of the 
Divine to the Human nature. This is the inevitable issue of ascrib- 
ing to our Lord a human soul as well as a human body derived from 
the virgin mother. Let it be understood, on the other hand, that the 
inmost element of our Lord’s being was, by conception, from the 
Father, and therefore as the Divine essence is indivisible, was the 
Father Himself, and we have a clear and consistent enunciation of 
the doctrine of Christ’s Divinity, without the least invasion of the 
great truth of the absolute Unity of the Godhead. We behold God 


and man united in Him in one person, and the key afforded us, on. 


this view, for a rational explication of the various and sometimes 
apparently conflicting texts of Scripture bearing upon the subject. 


| 
| 


s 


| The Glorification. * pu 


With such a presentation of the grand theme before us, it is at 
least sufficiently curious to contemplate in juxtaposition with it the 
following extract from Professor Norton’s “ Statement of Reasons,” 
in which he unequivocally denies the possibility of the truth of such 
a doctrine as Swedenborg has proposed. 


“ With the doctrine of the Trinity, is connected that of the HYPosTATIC UNION, 
as it is called, or the doctrine of the union of the divine and human natures in 
Christ, in. such a manner that these two natures constitute but one person. But this 
doctrine may be almost said to have pre-eminence in incredibility above that 
of the Trinity itself. The latter can be no object of belief when regarded in 
connexion with that of the Divine Unity; for these two doctrines directly con- 
tradict each other. But the former, without reference to auy other doctrine, 
does in itself involve propositions as clearly self-contradictory, as any which 
it is in the power of language to express. It teaches that Christ is both God 
and man. The proposition is very plain and intelligible. The words God and 
man, are among those which are in most common Use, and the meaning of 
which is best defined and understood, There cannot (as with regard to the 
terms employed in stating the doctrine of the Trinity) be any controversy 
about the sense in which they are used in this proposition, or, in other words, 
about the ideas which they are intended to express. And we perceive that 
these ideas are wholly incompatible with each other. Our idea of God is of 
an infinite being; our idea of man is of a finite being; and we perceive that 
the same being caunot be both infinite and finite. There is nothing clear in 
language, no proposition of any sort can be affirmed to be true, if we cannot 
affirm this to be true,—that it is impossible that the same being should be finite 
and infinite; or, in other words, that it is impossible that the same being 
should be man and God. [If the doctrine were not familiar to us, we should 
revolt from it, as shocking every feeling of reverence toward God ;—and it 
would appear to us, at the same time, as mere an absurdity as can be pre- 
sented to the understanding. No words can be more destitute of meaning, 
so far as they are intended to convey a proposition which the mind ts capable of admit- 
ting, than such language as we sometimes find used, in which Christ is de-: 
clared to be at once the Creator of the universe. and a man of sorrows ; God 
omniscient and omnipotent, and a feeble man of imperfect knowledge. 

«The doctrine of the Trinity, then, and that of the union of two natures in 
Christ, are doctrines, which, when fairly understood, it is impossible, from the 
nature of the human mind, should be believed. They involve manifest con- 
tradictions, and no man can believe what he perceives to bea contradiction. 

In what has been already said, [ have not been bringing argumeuts to disprove 
these doctrines ; [have merely been showing that they are intrinsically inca- 
pable of any proof whatever; fora contradiction cannot be proved ;—that they 
are of such a character, that it is impossible to bring arguments In their sup- 
port, and unnecessary to adduce arguments against them.”—-Norton’s Statement 


of Reasons, p. 17-19, 22. 


You will see from this that it is not possible to array two distinct 
exhibitions of Christian doctrine in more direct antagonism with each 
other than is done by the citation of this passage in connexion with 
the scope of my previous reasonings. To what extent the author 
will be admitted as an accredited expounder of Unitarian sentiments, 
I know not; but yourself and my other readers must judge on which 
side the truth lies, if the inspired oracles are to be the standard of 
faith; and also where there is any ‘ntermediate ground on which the 
Lord’s essential Divinity can be safely made to rest. For myself, I see 
none. If the doctrine of Swedenborg on that head is not the true doc- 


*™ 
4 - / ‘ 
88 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter LX. 


trive, I despair of finding it either in the Bible or out of it, and I should 
despair too of successfully refuting the above argument on the basis 
of the common Trinitarian theory. If you feel competent to the 
task, I hope you will undertake it. For myself, my only resource is — 
to array against it the tenor of the foregoing course of argument. 

According to the plan proposed, having treated at some length the 
mode of the incarnation, [ am now brought to the consideration of the 
ends to.be accomplished by it. This would, perhaps, most naturally 
enforce upon me the direct and formal discussion of the doctrine of 
the Atonement, which is commonly regarded as embodying or con- 
centrating within itself the ends of the Divine Benevolence in ordain- 
ing the assumption of human nature on the part of the Son of God. 
That doctrine | shall submit to examination as I proceed, but my 
purpose is to anticipate what would perhaps appear to be the regular 
course of the argument, and to devote the present letter to the sub- 
ject of our Lord’s Glorification. I do this because in the views of the 
New Church, the process of glorification stands in most intimate con- 
nexion with the incarnation, as it commenced with the assumption of 
the natural humanity and reached its acme simultaneously with the 
laying it aside. As the design, in fact, of his becoming incarnate 
was that he might be glorified, and by being glorified might become 
the Saviour of men, this fact prescribes the more orderly mode of dis- 
cussion, and the subject thus treated will virtually cover the ground 
of the Atonement, as it will evince that nothing of a vieartous cha- 
racter is involved in the economy of redemption. By showing what 
the Atonement 7s, we show at the same time what it zs nof, and if 
there be any basis of truth to what I shall now advance, it will at 
least be made clear that the essence of our Lord’s atonement was not 
concentrated in his death on the cross, or in what is termed the sacri- 
fice there offered up to Divine justice. But of this you will be able 
to judge better hereafter. | 

That the Lord was appointed to pass through a process termed 
glorification is abundantly evident from the following among other 
passages :—“Atfter Judas had gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of 
man glorified and God is glorified in Him. If God be glorified in 
Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway 
glorify Him.” “Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son that thy 
Son also may glorify Thee.” “Nowis my soul troubled; and He 
said, Father glorify thy name; and there came a voice from heaven, 
saying, | have both glorified it and will glorify it again.” “ Ought 
not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?” 
The question occurs, what is to be understood by this language ? 
What is the precise idea to be attached to the word glorify in these 
connexions? [t can hardly, I think, be doubted that the common con- 
ception awakened by the term is that of exaltation, dignity, majesty, 
dominion. The glory of an earthly sovereign consists in the power, 
wealth, splendor, and pre-eminence with which he is invested, and 
this idea we naturally transfer to Christ after his resurrection from the 
dead, when we regard him as seated at the right hand of the Father, 
and surrounded with all the insignia of celestial royalty. The domi- 


we 


The Glorification. 89 


nant impression, therefore, produced by, the term is that of a certain 
Divine splendor which the mind connects with the prerogatives that 
He enjoys in his risen and ruling state. 

But it is evident that all such conceptions amount to nothing ex- 
cept so far as they agree with the intrinsic and elemental nature of 
the Divine Being. The glory predicated of him must be very differ- 
ent from any kind of outward display of dignity or majesty. It must 
have direct reference to the Love and Wisdom which are the all in all 
of his essence and perfection. Imagine for a moment the application of 
the term to a human being. So long as he abides in the flesh, in the 
present world, it will inevitably refer’itself to some kind of imposing 
eaternal manifestation, to something in his circumstances, his achieve- 
ments, or his possessions—but still to the external and bodily man. 
But suppose the man to be divested of the material body; contemplate 
him as a pure spirit in the spiritual world, and if aught of glory be 
predicated of him it must pertain to his spirit solely; it must be some 
property, phase, or attribute of his love or intellect or both; ina 
word, it must be something which is appropriate to the interior and 
essential nature of a being composed of the fundamental principles 
of will and understanding. So also in reference to the Lord Him- 
self. He is essentially Love and Wisdom, and his glory must be the 

glory of these principles in some form or other of their manifestation ; 

for we are continually remanded, in the theology of Swedenborg, to 
the very first principles of all things. Consequently he says again 
and again that God is heaven, because when heaven is analysed it 
resolves itself into the very being of God. So he says also that a 
spirit 7s his own love, because his love is his essence. It is on this 
ground, moreover, that he informs us that every thing in the Word 
has an ultimate reference to the Lord. The natural, the spiritual, 
the celestial senses are, as it were, unrolled, as so many swathings, 
and then the Divine appears. Hence, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob 
interiorly represent the Lord, each in some one of the aspects in 
which he is to be viewed. And who can doubt this when it is said 
of the people of Israel as representing the church, “ My servant 
David shall rule over them.” Is not the Lord ultimately indicated 
under the title David? And was: not Abraham, for instance, as fit 
a representative of the Lord as David? 

You will perceive from this that the idea conveyed by the term 

_ glorification as applied to our Lord, is far different from that of a 
mere splendid or glorious state resulting from the exercise of kingly 

dominion or from the bare display of the most exalted prerogatives 
whether in the midst of angels or men. It is a term applicable to an 
internal or subjective condition which in the case of our Lord, viewed 
in his Humanity, brought him into the capacity of saving the human 
race. On the common theory of Redemption the glorification of 
Christ was a mere resulting effect, in the Divine economy, from the 
previous state of humiliation and suffering to which he condescended 
to stoop, and could not be said even to have commenced so long as 
that state continued. Indeed it is for the most part spoken of as a 
reward for the voluntary endurance of the pains and afflictions which 


~ 


90 - Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter LX. 


he underwent on our behalf, and our ideas of it are governed by the 
letter of such texts as the following:—* Who for the joy that was set 
before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set 
down on the right hand of God.” But on the higher and truer view, 
as I conceive it to be, of the New Church, the glorification com- 
~menced from the outset of the earthly humanity of Jesus and ran 
parallel with it to the termination of his career in the flesh, when it 
reached its culminating and consummating point in the complete de- 
position of everything that bore the taint of the maternal infirmity. 
‘So far from being a mere result and sequence of the atoning work of 
the Saviour it was the very essence of the atonement itself, apart 
from which the term loses entirely its genuine force. Instead of in- 
dicating a state into which a transition was first made upon his emer- 
gence from the depth of his humiliation into the height of his exalta- 
tion, it denotes an interior process which was going on through the 
whole course of his earthly pilgrimage, and which resulted in the 
complete unition of the Human with the Divine, somewhat as the 
process of regeneration in a man results in “his body of vileness 
being fashioned like unto the glorious body of Christ.* That there is 
a, difficulty in bringing this sublime doctrine down to the comprehen- 
sion of the natural man we are forced to admit, because it involves 
the recognition of the process of regeneration which can never be 
adequately grasped except by one who has in some degree expe- 
rienced it.t Still the fact that a doctrine of revelation may require, 
in order to its full apprehension, the higher intelligence of the spirit- 
ual mind, cannot fairly be urged as an argument of its falsity, so long 
as the apostolic declaration holds good, that “the natural man re- 
ceiveth not the things of God; for they are foolishness unto him; 
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 
Nevertheless, ] have assumed the task of endeavoring to enunciate 
the truth on this head, and those that are spiritual, who “judge all 
things,” will find in themselves a criterion of judgment as ‘to the 
claims of the doctrine.{ 


— 


* «<The regeneration of man is an image of the Lord’s glorification; that is, in regene- 
ration as in a kind of image it appears how the Lord glorified his human, or what is the 
same, made it divine; for as the Lord altogether changed his human state into divine, so 
also the Lord with man when he regenerates man, altogether changes his state, for he . 
makes his old man new.”—A. C. 3296. 

+ © That the Lord as to the human was made new, that is, glorified, or what is the 
same, was made divine, no one can ever conceive, thus neither believe, who is in worldly 
and corporeal loves ; he is altogether ignorant what the spiritual and celestial is, nor in- 
deed is he willing to know ; but he who is not in worldly and corporeal loves, is capable 
of perceiving this, for he believes that the Lord is one with the Father, and that from him 
proceeds all that is holy ; consequently that he is divine even as to the human, and who- 
ever believes in his manner (or measure) perceives.” —A. C. 3212 

t ‘‘ Inasmuch as it now follows concerning the separation of the former human, which 
the Lord had from the mother, and atlength concerning its full rejection, it is to be known 
that the Lord successively and continually, even to the last of his life, when he was glori- 
fied, separated from himself, and put off that which was merely human, viz., what he 
derived from the mother, till at length he was no longer her son, but the son of God, as 
well with respect to nativity as to conception, and thus one with the Father, and himself 
Jehovah. Moreover, as to what concerns the separation and putting off of the maternal 
human, they do'not comprehend this, who have merely corporeal ideas concerning the 


The Glorification. 91 


If I have at all succeeded in my object hitherto I have made it 
somewhat obvious not only that Jesus Christ is the true and only Je- 
hovah, but also that a Divine Humanity, in “ first principles” is to be 
_ predicated of his very nature. In his incarnation this Divine Hu- 
manity passed into “last principles,” and He became God in Human 
flesh. ‘The human nature, however, received from the mother was 
a fallen nature, as she could impart no other.* It was consequently 
liable to temptation, to suffering, and to sin, though “he knew no 
sin,” nor was “iniquity found in his lips.” But it was in the economy 
of redemption that this fallen, infirm, and peccable humanity, here- 
ditarily received from the mother, should be gradually put off, and a 
perfectly Divine humanity, received from the Father, gradually put on. 
“He put off the human,” says Swedenborg, “taken from the mother, 
which in itself was like the human of another man, and thus natural, 
and put on a Human from the Father, which was in itself like his 
Divine, and thus substantial, from which the Human also was made 
Divine.” The process by which this was effected was our Lord’s 
glorification. This is thus explained. 


“ The Lord, by the most grievous temptation-combats, reduced all things in 
himself into divine order, insomuch that there remained nothing at all of the 
human which he had derived from the mother; so that he was not made new 
as another man, but altogether divine; for man, who is made new by regene- 
ration, still retains in himself an inclination to evil, yea evil itself, but is with- 
held from evil hy an influx of the life of the Lord’s love, and this by exceedingly 
strong power; whereas the Lord entirely cast out every evil which was he- 
reditary to him from the mother, and made himself divine, even as to the vessels, 
that is, as to truths; this is what in the Word is called elorification.”—A. C. 
3318 


But in order to. a clearer discovery of this great truth, it is impor- 
tant to advert to certain principles in the constitution of our nature 
which rendered such a process necessary. Among the remarkable 
developments made by Swedenborg is that of a clear distinc- 
tion between the external and the internal man. This is not a’ 
distinction simply between the body and the spirit. It is rather a 
distinction between the anzmal or sensitive, and the spiritual and hea- 
venly nature, though pertaining to each. Still it is one which re- 
cognizes the animal or psychical affections and appetencies as bear- 
ing a very close relation to the body, and as manifesting their power 


slp in STD Ml I} i oA 2 MR SRR SESS SEE es 


Lord’s human, and think concerning it as concerning the human of another man, where- 
by they are offended at it; such persons are not aware that as the life is, such is the man, 
and that the Lord had by conception, a Divine Esse of life, or Jehovah, and that a like 
esse of life had existed in his human by union.” —A, ©, 2649, 


® «© The Lord’s divine good natural, is what was Divine to Him from nativity, for He 
was conceived from Jehovah ; hence He had a Divine ‘esse from nativity, which was to 
Him for a soul, and consequently the inmost of his life. This was exteriorly clothed by 
those things which He assumed from the mother, and because this from the mother was 
not good, but in itself evil, therefore He expelled it of his own proper power, chiefly by 
temptation-combats, and afterwards conjoined this haman, which he made new in Him- 


self, with the divine good which He had from nativity.” —A. C. 4641, 


92 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter IX. 


and predominance chiefly through it. The following extracts develop 
the distinction more in detail :— 


“What the internal.man is, and what the external, is known to few, if any, 
in the present day. It is generally supposed that they are one and the same ; 
and the reason of this supposition is, because the generality of persons believe 
that they do what is good, and think what is true of themselves, or from pro- 
prium, this being a necessary consequence of submission to its influence. : 
The internal man is as distinct from the external as heaven from earth. Both the 
learned and the unlearned, when reflecting on the subject, entertain no other 
conception respecting the internal man but as consisting of thonght, because 
it is within; and believe that the externai man is the body, with its sensual 
and voluptuous principle, because they are without. Thought, . however, 
which is thus ascribed to the internal man, does not, in fact, belong thereto; 
for in the internal man there are nothing but goods and truths derived from 
the Lord, conscience being implanted in the interior man by the Lord. Thus 
the wicked, yea, the very worst of men, and even those who are destitute of 
conscience, have a principle of thought; hence it is evident that the faculty 
of thonght does not belong to the internal, but to the external man. That the 
material body, with its sensual and voluptuous principle, does not constitute 
the external man, is manifest from this consideration, that spirits, who have 
bo material bodies, have an external man as well as men on earth. BP vy el me 
The internal man is formed of what is celestial and spiritual; and the external 
mau of sensual things, not belonging to the body, but derived from bodily 
things; and this is the case not only with man, but also with spirits.”"—A. C. 
978 


“They who have only a general idea concerning the internal and external 
man, believe that it isthe internal man which thinks and which wills, and the 
external which speaks and acts, since to think and to will is somewhat inter- 
nal, aud thence to speak and to act is external. But it is to be noticed that 
ee the internal man thinks and wills, but also the external.”-—A. C. 9702, 


“Tt is scarcely known at this day what the external man is; for it is sup- 
posed that the things appertaining to the body alone constitute the external 
man, us his sensuals, namely, the touch, the taste, the smell, the hearing, 
and the sight; as also the appetites and pleasures. But these only constitute 
the outermost man, which is merely corporeal. The external man properly is 
constituted by scientifies appertaining to the memory, and affections apper- 
taining to the love with which man is imbued; also by the sensuals which 
are proper to spirits, with the pleasures which likewise appertain to spirits, 
That these properly constitute the external or exterior man, may appear from 
men in another life, or from spirits who, in like manner have an external man, 
and an interior, and consequently an internal man. This body is only as an 
integument or shell, which is dissolved, in order that man may truly Jive, and 
that all things appertaining to him may become more excellent.”—A. C. 17138. 


If this be sound we are shut up to the conclusion that the external 
man is by no means identical with the bodily fabric. It stands, in- 
deed, in close relation to the body and is the seat of sensation, and 
as there is always some degree of thought where there is sensation, 
so the power of thought belongs to the external man. Hence it 
follows that the Lord received not merely a body from the virgin 
mother, but also an external or psychical man, and for this reason 
we cannot say, without qualification, that He had no human soul; 
for in strict propriety of speech the word soul (Yox», psyche) denotes 


Me The Glorification. : 93 


this very element of our nature which we have above described 
as constituting the external man. Such an element our. Lord did 
undoubtedly derive from his maternal origin, and in virtue of this 
it could be said that he grew in wisdom and knowledge. But this 
psychical or natural principle was neither in him, nor is it in us, the 
inmost esse of being, although it is true that in the prevailing usages 
of speech the term soul'is applied to denote such an inmost principle 
of life and being. In the case of our Lord his internal essence was 
Jehovah or the essential Divine itself, and when we say that he had 
no human soul we always mean this, although aware that it is not a 
rigidly exact mode of speech, according to which he had a human 
soul, that is to say, an external man, as above described. 

These two principles, the external and the internal, are opposed to 
each other, the internal man inclining to heaven and heavenly 
things, and the external to earth and earthly things, and the end of 
regeneration is to bring them into harmony. The external is thus to 
be made not only a fit instrument, but a living image, of the internal, 
and to incline, like it, to heavenly things, and only to earthly in sub- 
ordination to heavenly. Now in order that our Lord might be truly 
a man it was necessary that he should be possessed of both these 
principles, and in order that he might be a Saviour, competently en- 
dowed, that they should both be brought to act in unison. But in 
His case that which answers to our internal man was Jehovah, or the 
Essential Divinity itself, whereas his external, being derived from a 
human parent, was subject to human infirmity, and therefore before 
He could enter into perfect oneness with the Father his external man 
was to be formed anew, so as to become the exact image of his in- 
ternal ; in other words, his Human was to become Divine. In this 
process consisted his glorification, and this process was gradual, It 
is thus more fully explained by one of the ablest expounders of 


Swedenborg. 


“¢The Lord Jesus Christ, while in the world, so far as he had anything ap- 
pertaining to him from the mother, or so far as He was the Son of Mary, was 
not strictly One with the Father: but in proportion as what He received from 
her was put off, aud a Divine Human Nature, received or brought forth from 
the Father, put on in its place, He advanced towards perfect union, till at length, 
all the life of the maternal nature being extinguished at the passion of the cross, 
and the Divine life from the Father being brought down into the lowest natural 
principle in lieu of it at the resurrection, He thenceforward, and for ever, Was, 
and is, One with the Father,—One God in One Divine person; his Divine Soul 
being the very Father or what is called God in his inmost essence, and his 
Divine Body being the Son of God, or aclothing.of the Divine Essence, brought 
forth solely from that Essence itself, to be the medium of its manifestation to 
mankind.”—Noble’s Lectures, p. 118, 119. 

« Even the natural body, it is to be remembered, was conceived of Jehovah, 
and was, as to its inmost principles, divine from conception, having for its inmost 
soul the whole Divine Essence. The Divine Essence, while the Lord Jesus 
Christ was living as a man in the world, was in the continual effort to assimi- 
late the assumed Humanity to itself. In the interior forms of that human 
nature a glorifying process was going on, from the first to the last moment of 
his life. The Divine Principle within kept descending lower and lower, im- 


i 


94 Letiers to. a Trinitarian.—Letter IX. 


parting its own divine nature to the interior forms of the human essence in 
succession ; extirpating everything that partook of infirmity,—everything, in 
fact, that was derived from the mother; but yet retaining every human prin- 
ciple entire, though rendered infinitely perfect and truly divine. When all 
that belongs to man beyond or above the mere shell of clay had been sub- 
mitted to this wonderful process, the crucifixion took place: and then, the 
merely human life being altogether extinct, the divine life descending to the 
extremes of the bodily frame, renewing the whole by its descent. This fully 
accomplished, He arose again with his human form complete, nothing being 
lost or left behind,—a truly Divine Man, having in his Glorious Person every 
thing, and every principle, which is found in the constitution of man, but all 
perfectly assimilated in nature to the pure Divinity Itself. In this Divine Hu- 
manity, therefore, He is truly the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, 
“—the very immediate Esse or Source of being to everything that exists, the 
immediate Upholder and Supporter of all things, both in heaven and earth. 
Thus the child once born, the son once given, is of a truth the Mighty God, 
the Everlasting Father upon whose shoulders, of right, the government rests, 
and to whom belong glory and dominion for ever.”—Jbid. 140, 141. 


I could fain hope that the main position has been so stated as to be 
exempt from the charge of disparaging in any degree the pure and 
perfect character of the Saviour, but in order to guard still further 
against any misapprehension, I insert the following paragraph, un- 
folding the sense in which alone evil is predicable of his nature. 


“Tt may be a matter of surprise to many, to hear it said that hereditary evil 
from the mother was withthe Lord; but . . . itcannot be doubted that it was 
so. It is altogether impossible for any man to be born of a human parent, 
but he must thence derive evil. But there is a difference between hereditary 
evil which is derived from the father, and that which is derived from the 
mother. Hereditary evil from the father is more interior, and remains to 
eternity, for it can never be eradicated: the Lord had no such evil, since he 


was born of Jehovah as his Father, and thus, as to iriternals, was Divine, or — 


Jehovah. But hereditary evil from the mother appertains to the external 
man: this was attached to the Lord. Thus the Lord was born as another 
man, and had infirmities as another man. That he derived hereditary evil 
from the mother, appears evidently from the circumstance of his enduring 
temptations; for itis impossible that any one should be tempted who has.no 
evil, evil being that in man which tempts, and by which he is tempted. That 
the Lord was tempted, and that he endured temptations a thousand times 
more grievous than any man can possibly sustain, and that he endured them 
alone, and by his own proper power overcame evil, or the devil and all hell 

is also manifest. It is not possible for any angel to be tempted by the devil, 
because, being in the Lord, theyevil spirits cannot approach him even dis- 
tantly, as they would be instantly seized with horror and fright; much less 
could hell approach to the Lord, if he had been born Divine, that is, without 
an adherence of evil from the mother. That the Lord also bore the iniquities 
and evils‘of mankind, is a form of speaking common with preachers; but for 
him to take upon himself iniquities and evils, except in an hereditary way 

was impossible. The Divine Nature is not susceptible of evil: wherefore, 
that he might overcome evil by his own proper strength, which no man ever 
could, or can do, and might thus alone become righteousness, he was willing 
to be born as another man. There otherwise would have been no need that 
he should be born; for he might have assumed the Human Essence without 
nativity, as he had formerly done occasionally, when he appeared to those of 
the Most Ancient Church, and likewise to the prophets. But in order that he 
might also put on evil, to fight against and conquer it, and might thus at the 
same time join together in himself the Divine Essence and the Human Es- 
sence, he came into the world. The Lord, however, had no actual evil, or 


The Glorification. 95 


evil that was his own; as he himself declares in John: ‘Which of you con- 
victeth me of sin ? viii. 46."—A. C. 1573. . 


Our Lord’s external man, then, was to be brought into a state of 
complete and harmonious union with the internal, which is otherwise 
expressed by saying that his Human was to be, as it were, merged 


in his Divine, and when this was fully effected he was fully glorified, 


of which the passion of the cross was the last and consummating 
step. The rationale of the process is thus strikingly unfolded in the 
Arcana. 


‘Tt is known that the Lord was born as another man, and that when an in- 
fant He learnt to speak as another infant, and that He next grew in science, 
also in intelligence and wisdom; hence it is evident, that his human was not 
Divine from nativity, but that He made it Divine by his own proper ability. 
That it was done by his own proper ability was because He was conceived 
by Jehovah, and hence the inmost of his life was Jehovah Himself; for the 
inmost of the life of every man, which is called soul, is from the father, but 
what that inmost puts on, which is called body, is from the mother. That the 
inmost of life, which is from the father, is continually flowing in and operat- 
ing upon the external, which is from the mother, and endeavoring to make 
this like to itself, even in the womb, may be manifest from sons, in that they 
are born to the natural inclination of the father, and in some cases grandsons 
and great-grandsons to the natural inclinations of the grandfather and great- 
grandfather: the ground and reason of this is, because the soul, which is 
from the father, continually wills to make the external, which is from the 
mother, like to itself. Since this is the case with man, it may be manifest 
that it was especially the case with the Lord. His inmost was the Divine It- 
self, because Jehovah Himself, for He was his only-begotten Son ; and inas- 
much as the inmost was the Divine Itself, could not this, more than in the. 
case of any man, make the external, which was from the mother, an image 
of itself, that is, like to itself, thus make the human, which was external, 
and from the mother, Divine? and this by his own proper ability, because 
the Divine, which was inmost, from which He operated into the human, was 
his, as the soul of man, which is the inmost, is his. And whereas the Lord 
advanced according to divine order, He made his human when He was in the 
world, to be divine truth; but afterwards, when He was fully glorified, He 


made it to be divine good, thus one with Jehovah.”—A. C, 6716. 


The drift of these remarks affords us a clew to the solution of the 
apparent paradox of our Lord’s praying to the Father as to another 
person, when in fact, as I have endeavored to show, He was one 
with the Father, as the Divine Truth is ever really one with the 
Divine Good. It is doubtless this cireumstance more than any other 
which has tended to beget and confirm that idea of disjunction and 
duality, in relation to the Father and the Son, which has become so 
deeply inwrought in the mind of Christendom, and which is at the 
same time so utterly at war with all consistent views of the Divine 
Unity. The general impression on this score derived from the literal 
import of the Scriptures, in a multitude of passages, 1s In fact so 
strong as to have produced a virtual denial of one only God mani- 
fested in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and the virtual assertion 
of three Gods in three persons. I do not say that this belief is formal- 
ly avowed, but I say that the prevalent doctrine constructively 
amounts to this, and that every attempted explanation which would 


¢ 


96 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter LX. 


render the alleged Trinity consistent with the admitted Uni'y avoids 
a logical contradiction only by running on the fog-banks of mystery— 
a mystery inscrutable, unapproachable, defiant alike of angelic and 
human inguisition. To the view of the New Church all mystery on 
this. score is completely banished. We see an entire consistency be- 
tween these apparently repugnant aspects of our Lord’s character. 
The solution given in the ensuing paragraphs of the seeming incon- 
sistency is to us perfectly satisfactory. 


“So long as the Lord was in a state of temptation, he spake with Jehovah 
as with another; but so far as his Human Essence was united to his Divine, he 
spake with Jehovah as with himself. This is evident from many passages in 
the evangelists, and also from many in the prophets, and in David. The rea- 
son is plain from what has been said above concerning the hereditary from 
the mother; in proportion as anything of this remained, he was as it were 
absent from Jehovah, but in proportion as this was extirpated, he was present 
and was Jehovah himself..— A. C. 1745 . 


“ So far as the Lord was in the human not yet made Divine, so far He was 
in humiliation; but so far as He was in the human made Divine, so far He 
could not be in humiliation, for so far He was God and Jehovah. That He 
was in humiliation when in the human not yet made Divine, was because the 
human which He derived from the mother was hereditary evil, and this could 
not approximate to the Divine without humiliation: for man in genuine hu- 
miliation divests himself of all ability to think and do anything from himself, 
and leaves himself altogether to the Divine, and thus accedes to the Divine. 
The Divine was indeed in the Lord, because he was conceived of Jehovah, 
but this appeared remote, so faras his human was in the maternal hereditary; 
for in spiritual and celestial things, dissimilitude of state is what causes re- 
moval and absence, and similitude of state is what causes approach and pre- 
sence; and it is love which makes similitude and dissimilitude. From these 
things now it may be manifest, whence was the state of humiliation with 
the Lord when he was in the world; but afterwards when he put off the hu- 
man which he derived from the mother, insomuch that he was no longer her 
son, and-put on the Divine, then the state of humiliation ceased, for then he 
was one with Jehovah.”—A. C. 6866. 


“Whereas the Lord had from the beginning a humanity from the mother, 
and successively put off the same; therefore, during his abode in the world, 
he passed through two states, one a state of humiliation, or emptying himself, 


and the other a state of glorification, or union with the divinity which is called 


the Father: the state of humiliation was at the time and in.the degree that he 
was in the humanity from the mother; and the state of glorification, at the 
time and in the degree that he was in the humanity from the Father. In the 
state of humiliation he prayed unto the Father, as to one different from him- 
self; but in the state of glorification he spake with the Fatheras with himself: 
in this latter state he said, that the Father was in him, and he in the Father, 
and that the Father and he were one; but in the state of humiliation, he un- 
derwent temptations, and suffered the cross, and prayed unto the Father not 
to forsake him: for the divinity could not be tempted, much less could it suf- 
fer the cross. Hence then it appears, that by temptations, and continual vic- 
tories therein, and by the passion of the cross, which was the last of those 
temptations, he entirely conquered the hells, and fully glorified the humanity, 
as was shown above. That the Lord put off the humanity from the mother, 
and put on the humanity from the divinity himself, which is called the Father, 
appears also from this consideration, that so often as the Lord spake by his 
own mouth unto the mother, he did not call her mother; but woman.”—Doct. 
of the Lord, 35. 


\ 


The Glorification. , 97 


_ Ys there anything in this calculated to stumble one who appreciates 
what may be termed the twofold personality of the old and new man 
in the regenerating Christian? Is anything more palpable than the 
_ conflict which is continually going on in the bosom of such an indi- 
vidual, and which is so graphically described by Paul in the record 
of his own experience? “For that which I do | allow not: for what 
I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that 
which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then 
it is no more J that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. . For I know 
that in me (that is, in my flesh.) dwelleth no good thing: for to, will 
is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find 
not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would 
not, that Ido. Now if I dothat I would not, it is no more I that do 
it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would 
do good, evil is present with me. . For I delight in the law of God 
after the inward man: but Isee another law in my members, war- 
ring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to 
the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that lam! 
who shall deliver’ me from the body of this death? I thank God 
through Jesus Christ our Lord, So then with the mind I myself 
serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”’—fRom. Vii. 
15-25. 

Here is the “law of the mind” and the “law of the flesh” in direct 
antagonism with each other, each striving for the mastery, and each 
alternately claiming to be the real ipsetty or self-hood of the man. 
Now is it not evident that so long as this contest continues, the man 
is internally divided in himself, and that just in proportion as. the op- 


position is strong the external man is remote from the internal, and — 


as it grows weaker, that they come into conjunction? The end of 
regeneration is that they may both be brought at one, and this, in re- 
spect to our Lord, was the very essence of atonement (at-one-ment), 
as will perhaps be made more obvious in the sequel. But af present 
T would exhibit, in a still clearer manner, the analogy between re- 
generation and glorification, which I do in the words of our author. 


“The state of the Lord’s glorification may in some manner be conceived 
from the state of the regeneration of man, for the regeneration of man is an 
image of the Lord’s glorification; when man is regenerated, he then becomes 
altogether another, and is made new, therefore also when he is regenerated, 
he is called born again, and created anew ; then, although he has a similar face, 
and a similar speech, yet his mind is not similar; his mind, when he 1s regen- 
erated is open towards heaven, and there dwells therein love to the Lord, and 
charity towards his neighbor with faith ; itis the mind which makes another and 
anew man; change of state cannot be perceived in the body of man, but in his 
spirit, the body being only the covering of his spirit, and when it is put off, then 
his spirit appears, and this in altogether another form when he 1s regenerated, 
for it has then the form of love and charity in beauty inexpressible instead of 
its pristine form, which was that of hatred and cruelty with a deformity also 
inexpressible ; hence it may appear what a regenerate person is, or one that 
is born again, or created anew, viz., that he is altogether another and a new 
man. From this-image it may in some measure be conceived what the glori- 
fication of the Lord is; he was not regenerated as a man, but was made di- 
vine, and this from the veriest divine love, for he was made divine love itself; 


=a 


uF 


98 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter LX. 


what his form then was, was made apparent to Peter, James, and John, when it 
was given them to see him, not with the eyes of the body, but with the eyes’ 
of the spirit, viz., that his countenance shone like the sun, Matt. xxvil. 2;'and 
that this was his divine human, appears from the voice which then came out 
of the cloud, saying, ‘This is my beloved son,’ verse 5.”—A. C. 3212, 


In all-this it is carefully to be noted, that, although Swedenborg 
occasionally applies the term “regenerated” to the Lord, he would 
yet be understood to mean that the process, unlike what takes place 
with man, is not effected by any influence or agency foreign to Him- 
self, but it is due solely to his “own proper ability”—it is all in Him- 
self and from Himself. It is thus but another term for “ glorified.” 
This is very clearly announced in the following passage. “ That the 
Lord might make the human divine, by an ordinary way, he came into 
the world, that is, was willing to be born as another man, and to be 
instructed as another, and as another to be re-born, but with the 
difference, that man is re-born of the Lord, but that the Lord not 
only regenerated himself, but also glorified himself, that is, made 
himself divine; further, that man is made new by an influx of char- 
ity and faith, but the Lord by love divine, which was in him, and 
which was his; hence it may be seen, that the regeneration of man’ 
is an image of the glorification of the Lord; or, what is the same, 
that in the process of the regeneration of man, as in an image, may 
be seen, although remotely, the process of the Lord’s glorification.” — 
A. C. 3138. ? | | 

I have thus endeavored to exhibit somewhat of a correct view of 
the doctrine of our Lord’s glorification as taught in the illuminated 
theology of the New Church. It is the doctrine of the gradual depo- 
sition of the natural Humanity received from the mother, and of the 
-gradual assumption of a Divine Humanity received from the Father. 
That our Lord, viewed as to his essential nature, had a Divine Hu- 
man from eternity, is undoubtedly true, but in coming into the world. 
he superinduced, says Swedenborg, a natural Humanity upon the Di- 
vine, and this natural Humanity he successively glorified by victories 
over temptation, which continually tended to bring down the Divine 
influx into its forms, and thus eventually fill them with its own pleni- 
tude.*—But upon this and several other phases of the subject I shall 
dwell at greater length in another letter. ; 


Yours, &e. 


% 


’ \ . 

* ¢ He who is in the combats of temptation, and conquers, acquires to himself more 
and more power over evil spirits, till at length they dare not assault him; but in every 
victory obtained, the Lord reduces to order the goods and truths from which the combat 
was supported; when, consequently, these are purified ; and, in proportion as they are 
purified, the celestial things of love are insinuated into the exterior man, and a corres- 
pondence is effected. -Whosoever supposes that the external man can be reduced to Gor- 
respondence without the combats of temptations, is deceived.” —A. C.1717. If. harmony 
be here substituted instead of correspondence, the idea will be perhaps more obvious to the 
common reader. 


The Glorification. | 99 


/. LETTER X. 


a 


THE, GLORIFICATION. 


DEAR SIR, 


I may perhaps presume that the tenor of my two last letters has 
conveyed to you somewhat of a correct general idea of the doctrine’ 
of the Lord’s Glorification as. held by the New Church. You will 
have seen that it is something altogether different from that state of 
post-resurrection glory and grandeur which is usually understood by 
the term. It is the designation of an internal process which was con- 
tinually going on in the Lord’s human nature, as the result of that 
series of temptation-combats by which alone the hereditary evils of 
the maternal principle could be expelled, and a Divine humanity be | 
substituted in its stead.* It is in this view of the subject that we see 
the ground of the analogy between the glorification of our Lord and 
the regeneration of his people, to which I have already adverted. 
Swedenborg has in fact given to the world what may be termed a 
philosophy of temptation which constitutes.one of the most remarkable 
features of his system, and, as it lies at the very foundation of the 
doctrine of regenerate and glorified life, I shall dwell at some length 
upon it as essential to a right apprehension of the grand scope of my 
argument. And first, as to the fact of a continued series of tempta- 
tions endured by the Lord throughout the whole period.of his earthly 
sojourn. 


“ That the life of the Lord, from his earliest childhood even to the last hour 
of his life in the world, was a continual temptation and continual victory, ap- 
pears from several passages inthe Word.of the Old Testament; and that it 
did not cease’ with the temptation in the wilderness, is evident from these 
words in Luke: ‘After that the devil had finished all the temptation, he de- 
parted from him for a season,’ iv. 13; also from ‘this, that he was tempted 
even to the death of the cross, thus to the last hour of his life in the world. 
Hence it appears that the Lord’s whole life in the world, from his earliest 
childhood, was a continual temptation and continual victory ; the last. was, 
when he prayed on the cross for his enemies; thus for all on'the face of the 
whole earth. Inthe Word of the life of the Lord with.the Evangelists no 
mention is made, except the last, of any other than his temptation in the wil- 
derness; others were not disclosed to thé disciples; those which were dis- 
closed, appear, according to the literal seuse, so light, as scarcely to be any- 
thing; for so to speak and so to answer is not any temptation; when_yet, 1t 
was more grievous than any human mind can conceive or believe. No one 


4 


+ « With respect to the Lord’s essential life, it was a continual progression from the hu- 
man to the Divine, even to absolute union; for that be might fight with the hells and 
overcome then}, it was needful that he should fight from the human, inasmuch as there 


_gan be no combat with the hells from the Divine; therefore he was pleased to put on the 


human as another man, to be an infant-as another, and to grow up into sciences and 


’ knowledges. That the Lord’s progression from the human to the Divine: was such can 


be doubted by no one, who only considers that he was an infant, and learned to speak as 
an-infant, and so forth ; but there was this difference, that the essential Divine was In 
him, as being conceived of Jehovah.”—<A, C. 2523. : ‘ 


100 | Letters to a Trinitarian. —Letter X. 


can know what temptation is unless he has been in it. The temptation 
which is related in Matt. iv. 1-11; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1-13, contains in 
a summary the Lord’s temptations, namely, that, out of love towards the whole 
human race, he fought against the loves of self and of the world, with which 
the hells were replete. All temptation is made against the lovein which man 
is, and the degree of the temptation is according to the degree of the love. If 
it is not against the love, there is no temptation. To destroy any one’s love, 
is to destroy his very life; for love is life. The life of the Lord was. love to- 
wards the whole human race, which was so great, and of such. a nature, as 
to be nothing but pure love. Against this his life were admitted continual temp- 
tations, as already stated, from his earliest childhood to his last hour in the 
world. During all this time the Lord was assaulted by all the hells, which 
were continually overcome, subjugated, and conquered by him; and this 
solely out of love towards the human race. And because this love was not 
human but divine, and all temptation is great in proportion as the love is 
great; it may be seen how grievous were his combats, and how great the 
ferocity with which the hells assailed him. That these things were so I know 
of a certainty.”—A. C. 1690. 


“That the Lord, more than all inthe universe, underwent and sustained 
most grievous temptations, is not so fully known from the Word, where it is 
only mentioned that he was in the wilderness forty days, and was tempted 
of the devil. The temptations themselves which he then had, are not de- 
scribed except in a few words; nevertheless these few involve all; as what 
is mentioned in Mark, chap. i. 12, 18, that he was with the beasts, by which. 
are signified the worst of the infernal crew; and what is elsewhere related, 
that he was lead by the devil upon a pinnacle of the temple, and upon a high 
mountain, which are nothing else but representatives of the most grievous 
temptations which he suffered in the wilderness.”—A. C. 1663. 


The end to be attained by this indispensable process of temptation- 
combats, accompanied always by victory, was the gradual reduction 
of the external man to conformity or correspondence with the inter- 
nal, and the final union of the Human Essence with the Divine in 
the Lord, which is but another name for his elorification.* The 
general principle is thus stated by our author. 


“ Temptations have for their end the subjugation of what is external in man 
that they may thereby be rendered obedient to what is internal; as- may ap- 
pear to any one who reflects, that so soon as man’s loves are assaulted and 
broken, as during misfortunes, sickness, and grief of mind, his lusts begin to 
subside, and he at the same time begins to talk piously; but as soon as he 
returns to his former state, the external man gets the dominion, and he scarce- 
ly thinks at all on such subjects. The lke happens at the hour of death 
when corporeal things begin to be extinguished; and hence every one may 


eT 
SR Ta RE UE De il i a ng 


*-«* Temptation is the means of the conjunction of the internal man with the external 
inasmuch as they are at disagreement with each other, but are reduced to agreement tnd 
correspondence by temptations.”—A. C, 3928. 

a The external things that are discordant, which were spoken of above, are the only 
things that hinder the external man, when it acts upon the external, from making it one 
with itself. The external man is nothing else but an instrumental or dive ines some- 
thing, having no life in itself, but receiving life from the internal man dnd then it ap- 
pears as if the external man had life from itself. With the Lord, however after he cd 
expelled hereditary evil, and thus had purified the organicals of the dint Essence 
these also received life ; so that the Lord, as he was life with respect to the internal rey 
became life also with respect to the external man. This is what is signified b glorifi- 
cation.”——A. C. 1603. | . +o 


The Glorification. ;  10T 


see what the internal man is, and what the external; and the mode in which 


lusts and pleasures, which are of the external man, hinder the Lord’s opera- 
tion by the internal.”——A. C. 857. 


In the following extract the same view is expanded from a deeper 
ground and a strong light shed upon the rationale of the whole sub- 
ject. The theology of the schools sounds. no such depths as those 
that are reached by Swedenborg’s plummet. The intimationof organic 
and recipient vessels in the soul of man into which the influx of life 
from the Lord is received, may, at first blush, outrage your psychol- 
ogy, but I have no hesitation to adduce it, as it isa very natural se- 
quence from the admission which even you yourself would probably 
make, that the soul is a substance, and a substance, too, receptive of life 
from a Divine source, which it must be unless it have life in itself 
independent of the uncreated and self-subsisting life that pertains to 
the Lord alone. But if the soul be a substance adapted to the recep- 
tion of influent life, we see no reason to doubt what Swedenborg has 
affirmed, that this substance is organized for that purpose, as we find 
throughout the whole domain of vegetable and animal existence that 
organized forms are the fixed receptacles of vital influx. And if this 
holds in the lower departments of the universe, why not in the higher? 
What is the difficulty of conceiving that there may be spiritual sub- 
stances duly organized as well as material?» Assuming then as a 
postulate, what every intelligent receiver of Swedenborg is prepared 
argumentatively to maintain, that the human mind is as truly distin- 
guished by recipient vessels as the body is by a cellular tissue, I 
transfer the paragraph in question. 


“Good cannot be conjoined with truth in the natural man without combats, 
or, what is the same, without temptations; that it may be known how the 


case is, in respect to man, it may be briefly told; man is nothing else but an 


organ, or vessel which receives life from the Lord, for man does not live from 
himself; the life, which flows in with man from the Lord, is from His divine 
love ; this love, or the life thence, flows in and applies itself to the. vessels, 
which are in man’s rational, and which are in his natural; these vessels with 
man are in a contrary situation in respect to the influent life in consequence 
of the hereditary evil into which man is born, and of the actual evil which he 
procures to himself; but as far as the influent life can dispose the vessels 
to receive it, so far it does dispose them. . . . . Good itself, which 
has life from the Lord, or which is life, is what flows in and disposes; when 


- therefore these vessels, which are variable as to forms, are in a contrary posl- 


tion and direction in respect to the life, as was said, 1t may be evident that 
they must be reduced to a position according to the life, or in compliance. 
with the life; this can in nowise be effected, so long as man 1s In that state 
into which he is born, and into which he has reduced himself, for the vessels 
are not obedient, being obstinately repugnant, and opposing with all their 
might the heavenly order, according to which the life acts ; for the good 
which moves them, and with which they comply, is of the love of self and the 
world, which good, from the crass heat which is in it, causes them to be of 
such quality ; wherefore, before they can be rendered compliant, and be made 
fit to receive anything of the life of the Lord’s.love, they must be softened ; 
this softening is effected by no other means than by temptations , for tempta- 
tions remove those things which pertain to self-love, and to contempt of others 
in comparison with self, consequently things which pertain to self-glory, and 
also to hatred and revenge thence arising; when therefore the vessels are 


102 | _ Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter X. 


somewhat tempered and subdued by temptations, then they begin to become 
yielding to, and compliant with the life of the Lord’s love, which continually 
flows in with man; hence then it is, that good begins to. be conjoined.to 
truths, first in the rational man, and afterwards in the natural. 

Hence i 1s the reason why man is regenerated, that is, is made new, by tempta- 
tions, or, what is the same, by spiritual combats, and that he is afterwards gifted 
with another temper or disposition, being made mild, humble, simple, and 
contrite in heart: from these considerations it may now appear what use 
temptations promote, viz., this, that good from the Lord may not only flow 
in, but: may also dispose the vessels to obedience, and thus conjoin itself 
with them, .4-°;.. ; -;\ But as. teswhat respects the Lord, he, by the most 
grievous temptation-combats, reduced all things in himself into divine order, 
insomuch that there remained nothing at all of the human which he had 
derived from the mother, so that’ he was uot made new as another man, 
but altogether divine; for man, who is made new ‘by regeneration, still 
retains.in himself an inclination to evil, yea is evil itself, but is withheld from 
evil by an influx of the life of the Lord’s love, and this by exceedingly strong 
powers ; whereas the Lord entirely cast out every evil which was hereditary 
to hiin from the mother, and made himself divine even as to the vessels, that 
is, as to truths; that is what in the Word is called glorification. os if! ©: 
3318, rey 7 


The bearing of this upon the case of the Lord will not be of difficult 
apprehension. Receiving, as’ he did, a humanity from the mother 
tainted from the necessity ‘of its nature with hereditary evil, this ele- 
ment of evil was to be gradually put away, and a Divine humanity 
assumed, in consequence of which, he, in fact, ceased from that time 


to be the son of Mary, his infirm human being entirely lost and swal- — 


lowed up in the Divine. ‘The former state was that of the Lord’s 
humiliation, but the latter that of his glorification. “In the former 
state, viz., that of humiliation, when he had yet’ with himself an in- 
firm human, he adored Jehovah as one distinct from himself, and in- 
deed as a servant, for the human is respectively nothing ih "—A. C. 
2159, 

That the prevailing theology of Christendom involves no such view 


of a progressive glorification in the Lord is beyond debate. That 


theology maintains that, whatever may have been the change in cir- 
cumstances and state, still the nature of Jesus Christ was the same 
before and after the event termed his glorification. Accordingly, all 


those passages in which the. letter represents’ the Lord as distinct 


from the Father, and in whieh he prays to Him in the hour of his 
agony, appear to the mass of Christians as equally applicable to the 


Lord sojourning on earth and to the Lord reigning in heaven, They’ 


do not recognize the fact of his having undergone an inward change 
of nature still more marked than anything that occurred in the vicis- 
situdes of his outward lot. Thus, the dogma of Catholicism has esta- 
blished that Mary is still the mother of our Lord, and the result has 
been a glorification of her little short of that ascribed to her Son. 
Pro‘estantism, though rejecting the Mariolatry of the Romanist, is 
still equally explicit in recognizing the complete separation between 
Jehovah and Jesus. ‘The Son offers himself a sacrifice to propitiate 
the Father; as, otherwise they must hold that God died’ to propitiate 
himself, which is of course absurd. It holds, moreover, that the Son, 


re 


ee SS eT 


=e 


The Glorification. | ‘a 108 


in virtue of his atoning sacrifice, perpetually intercedes in behalf of 
his elect. He is, therefore, practically regarded as distinct from the 
Being with or before whom he intercedes. How exceedingly diverse 
from all this is the view presented by Swedenborg may be seen. from 
his statement of the true Scriptural doctrine of Intercession.* _ 


- 


«The Lord’s ilitercession for the human race was during his: abode in the 
world, and indeed during his state of humiliation, for in that state he spake 
with Jehovah as with another; but in the state of glorification, when the hu- 
man essence became united to the Divine, and was also made Jehovah, he- 
does not then intercede, but shows mercy, and from his Divine (principle) ad- 
ministers help and saves; it is mercy itself which is intercession, for such is 
its essence.”——A. C. 2250. 


This view of intercession we hold to result necessarily from the 
doctrine of the Divine unity. As-there is but one God, and Jesus 
Christ is himself that God, we find it as impossible to conceive of his 
interceding with himself as of his making an atonement to himself ; 
and we can admit no requisition upon our faith to acknowledge any 
doctrine as divine which clearly conflicts with the fundamental tenet 
of the supreme Deity and absolute Unipersonality of Jehovah-Jesus. 

Still objections suggest themselves. If the inmost soul of Jesus was 
Jehovah, then the Lord in praying to the Father prayed to his own 
soul. Unquestionably he did, on the principle before alluded to, and 
which is clearly developed in the two following paragraphs, which | 
give at length from the very great importance of the subject-matter 
as throwing light upon one of the profoundest arcana of revelation, 
to wit, the manner in which the duality of the letter is to be recon- 
ciled with the unity of the sense, in what is related of our Lord’s in- 
tercourse with the Father. 


“ The internal of the Lord, that is, whatever the Lord received from the 
Father, was Jehovah in him, because he was conceived of Jehovah. There 
is a difference between what man receives from his father,, and what he re- 
ceives-from his mother.°. Man receives from his father all that is internal, 
that is, his very soul or life; but he receives from his mother all. that is: ex- 
ternal: in a word, the interior man, or the spirit, is from the father, but the 
exterior man, or the body, is from the mother. This every one may compre- 
hend. merely from this; that the soul itself-is implanted from the father, 
which begins to clothe itself with a bodily form in the ovary, and whatsoever 
is afterwards added, whether in the ovary or in the womb, is of the mother, 
_ for it receives ho addition from elsewhere. Hence it may appear, that the 

Lord, as to his internals, was Jehovah; but as the external, which he re- 
ceived. from the mother, was to be united to the Divine or Jehovah, and this 
by temptations and victories, as was said, it must needs appeat to him in 
those states, when he spake with Jehovah, as if he was speaking with another, 
when, nevertheless, he was speaking with himself; so far, that 1s, as Ccon- 
‘junction was effected.”-A. C. 1815. 


« That the Lord adored and prayed to Jehovah his Father, is known from 
the Word in the Evangelists, and this as if to a Being different from himself, 


* See the subject of our Lord’s Intercession treated with consummate ability by Mr. 
Noble, in his * Lectures on the Important Doctrines of the True Christian Religion.” 
Lectures XVI and XVIII. 


104 . Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter X. 


although Jehovah was in him. But the state in which the Lord then WAS, . 


was his state of humiliation, the quality of which was described in the First 
Part, namely, that he was then in the infirm human derived from the mother. 
But so far as he put off that human, and put on the Divine, he was ina dif- 
ferent state, which ts called lis state of glorification. In the former state he 
adored Jéhovah as.a Person different from himself, althongh he was in him- 
self; for, as stated above, his internal was Jehovah: but in the latter, namely, 
the state of glorification, he spake with Jehovah as with himself,-for he was 
Jehovah himself. But how these things are cannot be conceived, unless it be 
known what the internal is, and how the internal acts upon the external : and. 
further, how the internal and external are distinct from each other, and yet 
joined together. This, however, may be illustrated by its like, namely, by 
the internal in man, and its influx into, and operation upon, his external. The 
mternal of man is that by which man is man, and by which he is distinguished 
from brute animals. By this: internal he lives after death, and to. eternity ; 
and by this he is capable of being elevated by the Lord amongst angels: it is 
the very first form by virtue of which he becomes, and is,a man. By this in- 
ternal the Lord is united to man: The heaven nearest to the Lord consists of 
these human internals ; this, however, is above the inmost.angelie heaven; 
wherefore these internals are of the Lord himself. Those internals: of men 
have not life in themselves, but are forms recipient of the life of the Lord. In 
proportion, then, as man isin evil, whether actual or*hereditary, he is as it 
were separated from this internal, which is of the Lord and with the Lord, 
consequently, is separated from the Lord: for although this internal be ad- 
joined to man, and inseparable from him, still, as far as man.recedes from the 
Lord, so far he, as it were, separates himself from it.. This separation, how- 
ever, is not an evulsion from it, for man would then be no longer capable of 
living after death; but it is a dissent and disagreement. of those faculties of 
man which are beneath it, that is, of the rational and external man. ° In pro- 
_ portion to this dissent and disagreement, there is a disjunction; but in pro- 
portion as there is no dissent and disagreement, man is conjoined by the. in- 
ternal to the Lord; and this is affected in proportion as he is in love and 
charity, for love and charity conjoin. Thus itis inrespect to man. But the 
internal of the Lord was Jehovah Himself, inasmuch as he was conceived of 
Jehovah, who cannot be divided and become another’s, as the internal of a 
son who is conceived of a human father; for the divine is not capable of di- 
vision, like the hunian, but is one and the same, and is permanent. With this 
internal the Lord united the Human Essence; and because the internal of the 
Lord was Jehovah, it was not a form recipient of life, as the internal of man 
is, but was life itself. His Human Essence also, by union, was in like man- 
ner made life; wherefore the Lord so often says that he is life; asin John: 
‘As the Father hath life in himself, 'so hath he given to the Son to have life in 
himself, chap. v. 26; besides other passages in the same Evangelist, as chap. 


1.4; v. 21; vi. 33, 35, 48; xi. 25. In proportion, therefore, as the Lord was’ 


in the human which he received hereditarily fromthe mother, he appeared 
distinct from Jehovah, and adored Jehovah as one different from himself; but 
in proportion as he put off this human, the Lord was not distinct from Jeho- 
vah, but one with him. The former state, as remarked above, was the Lord’s 
state of humiliation, but the latter was his state of glorification."— A. €. 1999. 


The same mystery, then, if we may so term it, is to be recognized 
in its degree in every man who becomes a subject of regeneration, 
This work is carried on by a process of temptation, or, in other words, 
of conflict between the flesh and the spirit, equivalent to the external 
and internal man. Just in proportion to the disagreement between 
these two principles, the man feels himself possessed, as it Were, ofa 
double personality, the one yielding, the other resisting. 

In this state of inward self-divulsion it is not difficult to conceive 
of one department of the man’s being addressing the other, as we 


7 
4 


* . : io a 
er ee 


? 


speaking, was no part of the Glorification (any more than man’s resurrection 18 


7 ea oe ee js ———— 
~~ : . 
‘ 


The Glorification.: = 105 


find in the case of David ;—* Why art thou cast down, O my soul, 
and why art thou disquieted within me? Hope thou in God, for I 
shall yet praise Him.” The case of Paul, as exhibited in the epistle 
to the Romans (Ch. vii.) I have already cited as strikingly illustra- 
tive of the grand position, This conscious antagonism of the two 
natures becomes less and less as the victories are multiplied .over 
temptation, for the effect of this is evermore to bring: the soul into 
harmony and unity with itself; and this is in truth an image in 
miniature of the sublime conjunction of the Human and the Divine, 
which ‘constituted the glorification of the Lord. As this, however, 
was a result accomplished by degrees, as it was the issue of .a pro- 
cess extending through the whole term of the Lord’s. terrestrial life, 
and was brought to’-a consummation by the passion of the cross, 
which was the last stage of his temptations—at once his sorest trial 
and his crowning triumph—so the conclusion presses upon us, that 
the regeneration of man, which is conformed to this exemplar, is not 
an instantaneous act but a gradual process. 

That the plenary glorification of the Lord was accomplished by 
the death on the cross, he himself teaches in John xiii. 31, 32;-> 
“Therefore when he was gone out Jesus said, Now is the Son of man 
glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God be glorified in him 
(iv avrs), God shall also glorify him in: himself, (é év7d), and shall 
straightway glorify him.” Here the glorification is predicated both 
of God the Father and of God the Son, since God is glorified in him, 
and if!so, he will glorify him i himself, clearly evincing that the 
glorification was an act of union and identification between the 
Father and the Son, in consequence of which the Son was henceforth 
to be so merged in the Father that they could no longer be viewed as 
in a state of even apparent. separation. This was effected at the 
crisis of the crucifixion when the mysterious process reached its 
acme; “ Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son that thy Son also 
may glorify thee.” The son of Mary is nailed to the cross and suf- 
fers the agony of dissolution, and in the article of death the union of 
the Divine and Human becomes completed: the man Christ Jesus is 
fully identified with the one only God, Jehovah, and hence is he now 
known in the New Church by the distinguishing and appropriate 
title of Tur Lorpv. At this eventful moment the bonds of his terres- 
tial relationships were severed, the Lord rejected whatever he held 
in common with the fallen race of men, and Mary ceased to be his 
mother; “ Woman, behold thy son,” and to the disciple whom he 
loved, “ Behold thy mother.” ‘These words, in conjunction with what 
follows, denote the completed work of glorification: “After this, 
Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the 
scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst--and when he had received 
the vinegar he said, Iv 1s rrvisnep: and he bowed his head and gave 
up the ghost.”* | 


Tn NG 


* «When the Lord said, ‘ It is finished,’ all was accomplished that can properly be 


called Glorification, as answering to man’s regeneration, for the Resurrection, sib 
a part Oo 


his regeneration), but only a result from it, or manifestation of it, as previously accom- 


_ plished.”—(Masow’s Answer to Hight Questions, p. 54.) 


x, 


rd 


f 


106 Letters to a Trinitariam—Letter X. 


‘The Lord, however, was not to be holden of the bonds of the 
grave; he therefore arose and appeared to his disciples in such a 
measure of his glory as they were able to bear, while his body in 
outward semblance bore the aspect. of the body of the son of Mary 


which hung upon.the cross and rested in the tomb of Joseph. “ Be-: 


hold,” said he to his disciples, “behold my hands and my feet, that it 
is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones 
as ye see me have.” As if for confirmation, Thomas was allowed to 
put his fingers into the prints of the nails, and subsequently the Lord 
sat down with his disciples to a-meal of broiled fish and honeycomb. 

These are the passages on which the, christian church relies, in 
teaching that our Lord was entirely the same before his death and 
after his resurrection. ‘But it is obvious that the body with which he 
rose was divested of material properties, as it enabled him to enter a 
room with closed’ doors and to appear and disappear at pleasure to 
the view of his disciples. He was,, therefore, at this time in a glori-: 
fied body because in a glorified state; but in what precise manner 
this body was divested of sensible material properties, and eman- 
cipated from its liability tothe laws of the natural world, is doubt- 
less beyond the ken of mortal apprehension. [am as much at liberty 
to call upon you for explanation on this score as you upon me. We 
must both admit that an immense change took place in the properties 


of the body, and yet that the personal likeness, as Witnessed, by the: 


disciples, remained unchanged. We, however, are. taught—-what 
you would be also if you could receive it-_that the post-resurrection 
appearances of the Lord were not perceived by the natural but by 
the spiritual senses of the spectators, Just as we suppose that the 
body of the transfiguration, which shone as the sun, was seen by in- 
terior and not by exterior vision. | 
The mystery of our Lord’s glorification is dimly shadowed out in 
the process which takes place in ourselves. The soul during its so- 


journ in the body makes use of it as a vestment and an instrument. 


Every day and every hour it is laying aside the old and assuming 
new substances.. The life on earth is an.incessant death and: an in- 
cessant resurrection. The body of the child is not, as to-substance, 


identically one with that of the adult man, nor that of the adult man: 


with that of the old man. How then can we maintain that precisely 
the same material body will arise, when the same flesh is not, for a 
single day, subject to the same soul? By this analogy we may com- 
prehend the sublime. process of our Lord’s glorification, as far as it 


is given to the finite of man to grasp the infinite of God.* 
Cee ee eee ee se a A a ee Ee ar Ve ee AS ES TL MM 1h op) eh 
* The following extract from the Lectures of Rev, B. F. Barrett presents a pertinent 
but still inadequate view of the subject, by means of a striking illustration. As our ar- 
gumentative scope is ‘substantially the same, it serves both our purposes equally 
well. ' 
«Our conception of this divine operation may perhaps be somewhat aided if we re- 
flect upon how the case is in that natural phenomenon which is called petrifaction—a 
process by which wood or any other organic substance is changed to stone. As often as 
a particle of the organized substance which undergoes this operation is removed, a par- 
ticle of mineral or silicious matter comes in and takes its place. And thus, when the 
process is completed, the substance of the wood has all been removed, and replaced by 


; 


~ 2 
— 


—" 


Se 


es ae 
. 
4 
= 


The Atonement. ; | . | 107 


_ The Lord, however, successively laid aside the substances received 
from the virgin mother, not to borrow and substitute for, them new 
material, substances, but to put'on in their stead the spiritual sub- 
stances of his Divine Humanity, such as it appeared, by anticipation, 
to Reter, James, and John, on the hallowed mount of transfiguration. 
The completion of this process was the consummated union or uni- 
tion of the Human with the Divine Essence, in virtue of which the 
‘Lord is now able to put forth a redeeming and saving power towards 
our lost race which would otherwise have been for ever impossible 
consistently with those laws of order from which the Most High can- 
not depart without denying his own nature. But upon this point I 
propose to dwell more at length in another letter. 

) Yours, &c. 


LETTER XI. 


THE ATONEMENT. 


DEAR SIR, 


Pursuant to previous intimations, I propose to devote the present 
letter to the subject of the Atonement. Its intimate connection with 
the general theme thus far treated ‘is obvious ata glance. It is the. 
exigency in which Atonement Is supposed to originate that brings so 
prominently into view, and renders: so indispensable, the threefold 
distinction of persons which is held.to constitute the true doctrine of 
the Trinity. The essential element in the prevailing theory of the 
Atonement is that of vicarious sacrifice or substituted suffering, and 
this ductrine of satisfaction obviously rests upon the assumed tenet 
of the tripersonality of Jehovah, inasmuch. as it is held to be 
offered by one of these persons to the other and the essential divinity 
of the offerer is what gives its redeeming efficacy to the offering. On 
the basis of the prevailing scheme of Atonement, the Trinity of per- 
sotis in the Godhead is an equally indispensable element with the 

a Divinity itself’ The law which had been violated by sin was so in- 
finitely pure and so sternly inexorable, and the ability of the sinner 
to fulfil its demands had become so completely prostrated and ex- 
tinct, that nothing short of the intervention of the second person of 
the triune Godhead could avail to propitiate the clemency of the Fa- 


mineral matter; yet so cradual has this process been, that the form and organic structure 
of the wood has been completely preserved. And so perfectly is this the case, that it ap- | 
pears as if the wood had been changed to'stone. Something similar to this is also taking 
place continually in our bodies. Particles are constantly passing off, and aoe place is 
supplied by new ones; yet the form and organic structure of our bodies is sti preserved. 
—(Barrett’s Lectures, p. 307). . : | 

In the eighth of Noble’s Lectures the reader will find the subject here alluded to treated 
with distinguished ability. ; 


108 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XI. 


ther, vindicate his injured justice, and open the way for the bestow- 


ment of pardon, peace, and eternal Jife upon the guilty. In the exe- 
cution of this merciful purpose he came fully into our place asa 
fulfiller of the violated law, and by his perfect obedience and un- 
paralleled sufferings wrought out and brought in an everlasting 
righteousness, the merit of which is made over by imputation to the 
believer who receives the Divine testimony, and with a strong con- 


fidence appropriates to himself the proffered grace. As the grand 


virtue of the Redeemer’s work is concentrated in his passion on the 


cross, or in the blood shed on that occasion, so it is an act of faith | 


put forth in a special manner upon the eflicacy of this blood that 
constitutes the genuine ground of the believer’s justification in the 
sight of God. In this way he receives the full benefit of a gratuitous 
salvation, while the law, that brooks no infraction, is magnified and 
made honorable in the eyes of its Author and of the whole universe. 

There are various-other items comprised in this peculiar scheme of 
theology, to which I have “not adverted, although they enter essen- 
tially into the integrity of the system considered as a whole; such, 
for instance as the doctrine of election, of perseverance, and of in- 
stantaneous regeneration, to which we may add the dogma. respect- 
ing the Divine Anger. It is all along assumed as a postulate that 
indignation and wrath, in the most genuine sense of the terms, per- 
tain to the Most High, and that without the placating or propitiating 
of the Divine wrath, the exercise of his saving love towards sinful men 
is effectually estopped and can only find vent for itself in the channel 
opened by the shedding of the blood of Christ upon the cross: The 
effect of this sacrifice of the Son of God, it is contended, is to quench 
the burning flames of the Father’s anger, and to remove that moral 
disability under which he was laid by the law of his perfections on 
the score of the bestowment of pardon and eternal life upon fallen 
creatures. ‘This atoning blood, however, has been shed, its efficacy 
acknowledged by Him to whom it was offered, and now its priceless 
benefits are to be appropriated by an act of faith in virtue of which 
the believer may repose peacefully in the confidence of salvation. 
There is indeed no real righteousness or merit in such a faith, yet it 
1s tmputed to him for righteousness, and on the ground of it he may 
safely count upon being able to stand with acceptance before the 

Lord in the day of final audit. — | 
~ It would, doubtless, be doing injustice to the system under consid- 
eration, to say, that it makes no account of a good life, or that it does 
not, in some sense, provide for it and insist upon it. Bad as human 
nature is, and liable to be warped into the grossest falsities of per- 


suasion, there is still a deep-seated and ineradicable conviction abid-. 


ing in its bosom, that the essence of religion is in the life—that a 
man who lives well is a religious man, and that. a man who lives ill 
is an irreligious man. This is confirmed by the express declaration 
of holy writ, that the sum and substance of all religion—the conclu- 


sion of the whole matter—is to fear God and keep his commandments. ° 
It is hardly possible for any form of creed or confession to plant itself: 


in the belief of Christendom, in which life does not enter as an avow- 


\ 


| 
a ga i ' 
7 


The Atonement. 7 109. 


ed element, and as holding a prominent place, and yet I think it ob- 


vious that the basis for this doctrine in the present-scheme is a very 
slender one, and that it involves a complete inversion of the true order 
by which life is made to result from principles. Upon this point I 
shall dwell more at length by and by. . At present, I would simply 
advert to the fact, which cannot but be admitted as a marked feature 
of the scheme, that no previous change of character is requisite in 
order to the appropriation of all. the promises of the Gospel, provided 
there is the exercise of a fiducial trust in the divine assurances, so 
that if the sinner, at the last hour of life, puts forth a vigorous act 
o faith, his former -iniquities are all canceled, and he comes at once 
into the full privileges and prerogatives of a state of grace. As the 
vital act of faith is put forth at once, and this act is the essence of 
regeneration, it follows that regeneration is instantaneous; and as 
regeneration is the grand requisite to: salvation, while to the former 
nothing is requisite but faith, it is obvious that the demands of a holy 
life are practically all but annulled in the vicarious scheme of atone- 
ment. The legitimate results of the system are thus propounded by 
Swedenborg :— 


“The modern faith is, that it is to be believed, that God the Father sent His 
Son, who suffered upon the cross for our sins, and took away the curse of ‘the 
law by the fulfilment thereof, and that this faith without good works will save 
every one, even in the last hour of death: by this faith impressed from child- 
hood, and afterwards confirmed hy preachings, it has come to pass, that no 
one flees from evils from a. principle of religion, but only from a civil and 
moral law, thus not because they are sins, but because they are hurtful: con- 
sider now, whilst man thinks that the Lord suffered for our sins, that He took 
away the curse of the law, and that to believe those things, or that the faith — 
of those things alone, without good works, saves, whether all the precepts of 
the decalogue are not lightly esteemed, and all the life of the religion prescribed 


in the Word, and moreover all the truths which teach charity ; separate there- 


fore these, and remove them from man, and say whether there appertains to 
him any religion; for religion does not consist in only thinking this or that, 
but in willing and doing that which is thought, and there is no religion when 
willing and doing are separated from thinking: hence it follows, that by the 
modern faith, spiritual life, which -is the life of the angels of heaven, and the 
essential Christian life, is destroyed.”—A. E. 902. 


I am not conscious of having, in the above sketch, exaggerated or 
misrepresented the leading features of the theory of atonement upon 
which I am commenting. It surely is not necessary to invest it with 
any factitious enormities in order to intensify its repulsiveness to every 
right mind. Such an effect, however, will be more likely to follow 
from arraying it somewhat directly in contrast with what we believe 
to be the genuine doctrine of the Word on this subject. This doc- 
trine we find embodied in the theology of the New Church, and the 
sequel will show the strong points of contrariety between the two. 

And, first of all, this divine theology teaches that there is no real 
anger or wrath in the Deity. All those forms of speech which, view- 
ed in the letter, would seem to imply this, are the language of appear- . 
ances, and not of genuine truth as it is apprehended in heaven. The 
Lord is essential love, and love is inconsistent with wrath. The vir- 


¢ 


110. Letters to a Trinitarian.— Letter XI. 


tual assertion of anger asa quality of the divine mind is founded upon 
the sensible effect produced by the contrariety between the state of 
the man in evil and the Divine affection, which conveys to him the 
impression of the Lord’s being moved by wrathful emotions towards 
him. So to an inflamed condition of the eyes, the sun’s light is pain- 
ful, and a vague impression is produced of some kind of antagonism 
between the grand. luminary of day and the organ of vision, whereas 
it is wholly to a diseased state of the organ that this impression is 
owing, as the light of the sun is always genial and pleasant to the 
healthy eye. The language of the Scripture in all those passages 
which ascribe irascible passions to the Deity is but giving a name to 
the appearance instead of the reality; Just as when it is said, in refer- 
ence to the apparent motion of contiguous objects beheld from a rail- 
road car in rapid transit, that-they fly past one with winged speed. 


‘That Jehovah has not any anger, is evident from this, that He is love itself, 
good itself, and mercy itself, and anger is the opposite, and also is an infirm 
principle, which cannot be imputed to God: wherefore when anger in the 
Word is predicated of Jehovah or the Lord, the angels do not perceive anger, 
but either mercy, or the removal of evilfrom heaven. . . - . That anger 
in the Word is attributed to Jehovah or the Lord,is because it is a most 
general truth, that all things come from God, thus both evils and goods; but 

_ this most general truth, which infants, young people, and the simple, must re- 
ceive, ought afterwards to be illustrated, namely, by teaching that evils.are 
from man, but that they appear as from God, and that it is so said, to the intent 
they may learn to fear God, lest they ‘should perish by the evils which them- 
selves do; and afterwards may love Him, for fear must precede love, that in 
love there may be holy fear; for when fear is insinuated into love, it becomes 
holy from the holy of love, and then it is not fear lest the Lord should be an- 
gry and punish, but lest they should act against good itself, because this will 
torment the conscience. . . . . The reason why by anger is meant cle- 
mency and mercy, is because all the punishments of the evil exist from the 
Lord’s mercy towards the good, lest these latter should be hurt by the evil; 
but the Lord does not inflict punishments upon them, but they upon them- 
selves, for evils and punishments in the other life are conjoined. The evil in- 
flict punishments on themselves principally, when the Lord does mercy to the 
good, for then thew evils increase, and. thence punishments ; it 1s from this 
ground that instead of the anger of Jehovah, by which are signified the pun- 
ishments of the evil, mercy is understood by the angels. From these consid- : 
erations it may be manifest, what the quality of the Word is in the sense of the t 
letter, also what the quality of the truth divine is in its most general-sense or - 
meaning, namely, that it is according to appearances, by reason that man.is 
of such a quality, that when he sees and apprehends from his sensual, he be- 
lieves, and what he does not see, neither apprehend from his sensual, he does PI 
not believe, thus does:not receive. Hence it is, that the Word in the sense of i 
the letter is according to those things which appear; nevertheless in its inte- 
rior bosom it contains a store of genuine truths, and in its inmost bosom truth dl 
divine itself, which proceeds immediately from the Lord, thus. also divine 4 

.good, that is the Lord Himself."—A. C. 6997. 


“LThave conversed with good spirits, that many things in the Word, and | 
more than any one could believe, are spoken according to appearances, and 
according to the fallacies of the senses; as that Jehovah is in wrath, anger, 
and fury, against the wicked, that he rejoices to destroy them and blot them 
out, yea, that he slays them. But these modes of speaking were used, that . 
persuasions, and lusts might not be broken, but might be bent: for to speak 
otherwise than man conceives, which is from appearances, fallacies, and per- 


ac: i 


Fal 
—e 


The Atonement. | 111 


suasions, would have been to sow seed in the water, and to speak what would 
instantly be rejected. Nevertheless, those things may serve as common ves- 
sels for the containing of things spiritual and celestial, since it may be insin- 
uated into them, that all things are from the Lord; afterwards, that the Lord 


- permits, but that all evil is from diabolical spirits ; next, that the Lord provides 


and disposes, that evils may be turned into goods ; Jastly, that nothing but 
good is from the Lord. Thus the sense of the letter perishes as it ascends, and 
becomes spiritual, afterwards celestial, and lastly divine.”—A. C. 1874. 


The prevailing tenet ‘is, of course, opposed to Swedenborg’s state- 
ment on this head. It acknowledges no such distinction between real 
and apparent truth. The Divine mind would have been eternally the 
seat of inexorable wrath towards the race of men had not Christ Jesus 
interposed in their behalf, and by his voluntary oblation of himself, 
“changed the wrath to grace.” But we find, in this view of the subject,a 
difficulty insuperable: While it is denied that the Divine love could be ~ 
exercised towards fallen man without an atoning sacrifice, yet this very 
love provided the sacrifice in the first instance. Jesus Christ is the free 
gift ofGod. He provided the ransom. “God so loved the world that he 
gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life.’ We are then constrained to 
ask how it is, that if God the Father was relentlessly angry with the 
human race, he did not previously require to be pacified before he 
thought of thus providing the requisite satisfaction? This is a: ques- 
tion which we believe to be unanswerable on the accredited theory 
of atonement. To say that Christ satisfied the justice of God, at the 
same time that the satisfaction was of God’s own procuring, is the 
same as to say, that one who is indebted, to a large amount, to ano- 
ther, discharges the debt by money given him out of the creditor’s 
own pocket. Or, to-vary the illustration, suppose a poor man—one 
so utterly impoverished as to be unable to refund a penny—deeply 
in debt to a rich man who insists upon the liquidation of his claim. 
Aware, however, of the circumstances of his debtor, and disposed to 
aid him in an emergency, while keeping up the form of exact. deal- 
ing, he-brings forward his ewn son as surety for the poor man, and 
yet himself supplies that son with all the pecuniary resources that 
enable him to stand good for the demand. Is it not clear that the 
creditor becomes, after all, his own surety? And what real satisfac- 
tion is there in all this? Is it not palpably a feint, a simulation, a 
mockery? Is the debtor any more a real object of favor after sucha 
guast or ideal satisfaction than he was before? So much, then, for 
a theory of atonement built upon the assumption of positive wrath 
existing in the bosom of Deity, . 

But is it to be inferred from this that the salvation of men could 
have been as easily compassed without the mediation of Christ as 
with it? Was the incarnation, life, works, sufferings, and death of 
the Son of God an empty and useless expenditure of the Divine 
mercy? Far from it. It was a procedure of absolute and indispen- 
sable necessity; not however as a vicarious or propitiatory sacrifice— 
not as a vindication of the honor of a law which sinful man had 
broken—-but as the only possible medium of effecting renewedly that 


£112 Letters to a Trinitarian:—Letter XI. 


conjunction with the Divine nature in which stands the happiness of ~~ 


every created soul and which had been violently disrupted and sun- 
dered by sin. This we are taught to regard as the very essential 


b _ element of atonement, as it is the genuine signification of the original 


“word (xara\ayn, katallage,) thus rendered, which you are aware has 
in its genuine sense the import of reconciliation. I am well aware, 
however, that this view of the subject, which represents the essence 
of all true religion to lie in conjunction with the Divine, is one which 
the advocates of the popular theology invariably disrelish and shun. 
They do not like the term because they do not like the thing. It mili- 
tates directly with their dominant and favorite notions of the legal 
and governmental character of the transaction. Their views of atone- 
ment involve so much of a forensic element—they are built upon - 
such inveterate preconceptions respecting the dignity and sanctity of 
an outward or objective law—a law which must be fulfilled, although 
man has lost his power to fulfil it—that they seem utterly incapable 
of entertaining the idea of union or conjunction with the Divine Be- 
ing ‘as the very essence of heaven, and consequently of. salvation. 
The term, therefore, is a suspected and discarded term, as it is intul- 
tively seen to be completely at war with their chosen hypothesis of 
an. atonement effected by the Saviour’s plenary satisfaction of the 
demands of a violated law. . | 

Now the man of the New Church goes deeper than all this. - He 
recognizes an inward law more primary, organic, and fundamental 
than any outward law or code could be, though written on tables of 
stone by the Divine finger itself. He looks down into the law of his 
own nature. He sees that the evil consequent upon his apostacy is 
an evil that has seized upon the inmost vitalities of his being, which 
must of necessity work out the most deplorable miseries unless they 
are reached in their fountain-head by the appropriate remedy. He 
sees no process by which a putative transfer of righteousness can 
avail to eradicate the deep sin-stain which has struck into the very 
core of his moral life. He perceives also a fundamental fallacy in the 
very first conception of the fulfilling of law on the part of man—the 
conception, to wit, that man, in his integrity, had an inward power 
of perfect obedience, which he has lost by the fall, and that conse- 
quently a necessity has arisen for the obedience of a substitute, who 
should perfectly fulfil its utmost requirements, while the fruits of this 
obedience are made to redound to the benefit of the delinquent. In- 
structed in the deeper theology of the New Church, such an one per- 
ceives, that, from the very nature of dependent life, neither man in 
innocence, nor the highest angel in glory, has one particle of self- 
potency from which to obey law or to do good. From the fact that his 
being—his esse—is derived, his power of doing anything good is derived 
also, and Adam in Eden was no more competent, in himself consider- — 
ed, or by his own ability, to keep the law of the Decalogue than the 
lowest devil of the pit.* Consequently, every assumption which in- 


* <<‘ Ttis of divine order that man should act from freedom, since to act from freedom 
according to reason is to act of himself.. Nevertheless, these two faculties, FREEDOM and 
REASON, are not man’s own, but are the Lord’s within him ; and so far as he isman, they 


The Atonement. - ‘ 118 


volves the opposite view is founded upon a central fallacy which 
will vitiate the whole system throughout. The idea that Christ’s 
mediation was founded on the demands of an outward law which 
man had lost the power to fulfil, is inevitably false, because he never 
did and never could possess such a power. . ie 

How then was man’s redemption from the power of evil, i. e. from 
the power of hell, to be effected, and what was the precise nature 
and-end of that intervention of God incarnate which is everywhere 
held forth in the Scriptures as so indispensable.to the compassing of 
the objects of the Divine beneficence?, The answerrto this question. 
will obviously be determined, on my part, by the tenor of the whole 
foregoing series of letters. If I have at all succeeded in establishing 
my main position in regard to the Divine unity, or, in other words, in 
regard to the absolute identity of Jehovah and. Jesus, that peculiar 
aspect of the doctrine which represents the atonement as a satisfac- 
tion or expiation offered by the second person of the Godhead to the 


first, the virtue of which was especially concentrated in the death of | 


the cross, cannot possibly be just. The fact that the whole Trinity 


is to be recognized in the one person of the Lord the Saviour, for ever ©. 


bars the supposition that an atoning sacrifice should be any more 


‘required to be offered to the Father than tothe Son. As their nature 


and personality are one and the same; the moral demands made by the 
perfections of each are alsothe same. — On this ground, therefore, I feel 
abundantly authorized to say what the end of the Saviour’s mission 
was not—that it was not to make a vicarious atonement for sin—and 
the statement of a negative often helps us directly to the establish- 
ment of an affirmative. In the present case there surely cannot be 
many alternatives. Ifthe work of Christ was not expiatory, what re- 
mains to conclude respecting it but that it was simply salvatory? 
The fact that in Christ was not merely one person of the Trinity, but 
the whole Trinity, or, in other words, that he was the one, supreme, 
and absolute Jehovah, clothed with humanity, cannot but enforce 
upon us the conclusion, that the end of the incarnation was in some 
way to restore us back to that saving conjunction with Himself from 
which we had so rashly torn ourselves away. The more fully we 
can divest ourselves of the idea of Christ as a third person or party 


are not taken away from him, inasmuch as without them he could not be reformed 3 for 
he could not do the work of repentance ; he could not fight against evils, and afterwards 
bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. Now since freedom and reason are with man 
from the Lord,,and man acts from them, it follows that he does not act of himself, but as 
of himself.”’—Doct. of Life of N. J. 101. . 
‘*Man cannot think any thing, or will any thing from-himself. Every thing which he 


thinks and wills, flows into him from the spiritual world ; good and truth from the Lord 


through heaven, thus through the angels who are attendant on man, and thus into man’s 
thought and will. There is not any man, spirit, or angel, who in any case hath life from 
himself, thus neither ean he think and will from himself ; for man’s life consists In think- 
ing and willing, while speaking and acting is the life thence derived. For there is only 
one life, namely, the Lord’s, which flows in into all, but is variously received, according 
to the quality which man has by his life induced upon his soul.”-—A. C. 5846, 5847. 

‘*The case with man as to his affections and as to his thoughts, is this, no person 
whatsoever, whether man, or spirit, or angel, can will and think from himself, but only 
from others; nor ean these others will and think from themselves, but all again from 
others, and so forth; and thus each from the first souree or principle of life which is the 
Lord; that which is unconnected doth not éxist."—A. C 2886. 


8 


114 - Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XI. 


mediating between God and us, and distinct from, both, so much the 
more nearly shall we approximate to the true view of his entire re- 
demption or salvation work. He acts, or acted as Mediator, indeed, but 
thea the mediatorial function pertained solely and exclusively tothe Hu- 
~ manwhich was assumed, and not the Divine which assumed it. This 
Divine we are evermore to regard as being the essential Jehovah 
himself. When we realize, therefore, that there is no other God in 
the universe than He who is to be recognized in Christ—no Divine 
Father beyond or out of the Son—the inference would seem to be 
irresistible that the action of the infinite love in our recovery from sin 
and death puts itself forth irrespective of any propitiatory measure 
designed to remove obstacles in the way of its exercise. It will not 
suffice to reply to this, that the whole drift of the apostolic represen- 
tations, confirmed by the peculiar genius of the typical ritual of the 
Jews, speak continually the language of vicarious oblation ; for the 
question first of all to be determined is, whether Jesus Christ be 
intrinsically Jehovah God—the point which [ have been laboring 
throughout. Ifhe be, then I take the ground without hesitation that 
the sustaining of such an office by our Lord is a downright impossi- 
bility, and, consequently, that some other interpretation must be put 
upon the scriptural language in which it is spoken of. : 

But you, will still remind me that I have not yet distinctly pro- 
pounded the precise. grounds on which the incarnation of Jehovah 
became necessary or the exact mode in which it becomes available 
to our salvation. The true response flows legitimately from what I 
have hitherto advanced on the general subject. Man had broken the 
bond of connection which allied him to ‘the beatific source of his 
being. He had done this in the perverted exercise of his freedom as 
man, and in so doing had thrown himself within the disastrous 
sphere of infernal influences from which, unless he were liberated, 
he must inevitably perish. But in this liberating process, the free- 
dom of man and the freedom of evil spirits must be sacredly preserv- 
ed, for this is that peculium of the rational nature which Jehovah 
guards as the apple of his eye. Neither in time nor in eternity— 
neither in heaven nor in hell—does he ever suffer this gem of the 
soul to be touched with the finger of violence or constraint, as such 
a thing would be to extinguish the very principle of humanity in 
man. ‘The first step, then, in'the recovering work of Heaven’s mercy 
was the breaking of the bondage of evil into which man had fallen— 
the disanulling of that covenant with death and that agreement with 
hell into which he had so rashly entered. This could only be ef- 
fected by subjugating the powers of hell, and the agency by which 
this was to be brought about must necessarily be such as to be con- 
sistent with the essential freedom of the enemies to be subdued, for 
the All-Wise never deals with his creatures as a potter would with 
vessels that so displeased him in the making as to prompt him to dash 
them in pieces. He never treats men ‘as machines. He pays respect 
to the high moral nature he has given them, even when that nature 
is grievously abused, The’ end, therefore, at which his boundless 
benevolence aimed could not be attained if they were to be dealt with 


: 
’ 
‘ 
. 


4 


The Atonement. - co woe” FYB 


_ by the direct putting forth of the Divine power towards them. Before 


the naked arm of Omnipotence they could not stand for a moment. 
It was not, therefore, in the way of Omnipotence that infinite Wisdom 


deemed it meet to engage with the infernal hosts, since this could not. 


be done but in total disregard of their moral nature. They were to 
be met upon their own plane. Jehovah must in some way come down 
to their level, and yet it would be impossible that he should do this 
without instantaneously consuming them, unless he approached them 
through a medium, and that medium, we learn, was the assumed Hu- 
manity. Veiling the consuming ardor of his infinite love. under 
this investment, he could come in contact with man’s Spiritual foes. 
Devoid of the Humanity thus put on, it would have been impossible 
for him to have admitted into himself the temptations, the fierce and 
direful assaults, of the infernal legions, as the pure Divine is infinitely 
removed beyond the reach of their infestations. “Yet, unless he had 
been assailed in every possible way by the utmost malignity of the 
hells, he could not have subdued them, and thus could not have glori- 
fied his Humanity, or have “atoned, or reconciled the world to himself,” 
that is, could not have accomplished the work of redemption. This, 
however, he has accomplished, and it is in virtue of his glorious vic- 
tories in this behalf that he has removed the grand obstacles that 
stood in the way of man’s recovering himself by repentance and a 
new life of love and faith. There now perpetually flows forth from 
the glorified and Divine Humanity of the Lord, a sphere of quicken- 
ing spiritual life which is capable of resuscitating those who were 
previously dead in trespasses and sins. Operating through his Di- 
vine Word, which is but another name for his Divine Truth, he draws 


the souls of men to himself, as the central sun might be supposed to_ 


draw back to itself, by an augmented power of attraction, a planet 
that had wandered out of its orbit. This is atonement in its true interior 
sense, which is that of reconciliation or renewed conjunction; in a 
word, it is at-one-ment.- And it is ever to be borne in mind that all 
this is the work of the one, absolute Jehovah, existing, loving, and 
acting in one person made Immanuel, God with us, by the wondrous 
fact of incarnation. The whole theme is totally misconceived the 
moment we fix our thoughts upon what is termed the second person 
of the Trinity going through this process in obedience to the will, in 
vindication of the justice, and in the display of the glory, of the first. 

Unquestionably to human view a great mystery must, on any solu- 
tion, hang round an event so stupendous as the incarnation of a God. 
It is a mystery ineffably profound how the Divine could pass “ from 
first principles to last,” embodying his pure essence in the ultimates 
of our gross and fallen humanity. But however mysterious, the fact 
has to be admitted. No one can fairly reject it who believes, as you 
undoubtedly do, that “ the Word which was with God and was God, 
became flesh and dwelt among us.” This transcendant fact stands 
revealed on the very threshold, as it were, of the Christian oracles, 
and in this fact, in its interior import, we read the genuine doctrine 
both of Atonement and Redemption, the former the issue of the lat- 
ter. Itis here that we find an adequate clew to that wonder of won- 


116 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XI. 


ders, the Glorification—an internal process constituting the very heart 
and core of the Saviour’s mediatorial life, and which is yet. as com- 
pletely ignored in the prevailing schemes of atonement, as though it 
had never taken place. These theories take no note of any such hid- 
den process or progress in our Lord’s interior state during his sojourn 
‘on earth. The evangelic record that he was born an infant, that he 
advanced to childhood, that he increased in stature and wisdom, that 
he became a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and that he » 
finally died a painful and humiliating death on the cross, is of course 
admitted, and this is substantially the history of his mere external 
man. But prior to the revelations of the New Church, who of the 
advocates of the modern theories of atonement had ever obtained a 
glimpse of that inner world of mysterious experience, in which lay 
the germ of earth’s redemption? It is evermore this view of our Lord 
which is most prominent in the mind of a New Churchman. He 
looks incomparably more at what he was in his inner life than at 
what he.did in his outer works. He. knows of no other atonement 
than that which consists in. the actual reconciliation of the human of 
man to the Divine of Jehovah, for it was in this that the glorification 
of Jesus consisted, and in this he sees the prototype of his own regen- 
eration. 

Such then is the view which we are taught by Swedenborg to en- 
tertain of the subject before us. The end of the incarnation was not 
to satisfy law or glorify justice, in the outward or forensic relations 
of either. Divine law can never fail to satisfy itself, either in the 
cordial obedience rendered it, or by the punishment inseparably an- 
nexed to violation. The end for which the Lord assumed the Hu- 
man, was to provide a medium through which the saving Divine in- 
flux might reach us. This influx may be compared to that of the 
light. If a dense cloud intervene, the luminous ether cannot reach 
and penetrate the dark places that need illumination. Let the cloud 
be removed and the light finds its way to the regions and recesses 
which it could not visit before. Thus the mediatorial agency of the 
Son of God, which is the Divine Human, is to remove the obstructing 
cloud, and give access to the rays of light, while at the same time 
it affords a medium by which the rays of the Divine heat shall be so 
tempered as not to consume its objects. The great error in theology 
we conceive to have been in losing sight of the atonement as an ac- 
tual re-uniting, or putiing at one, opposing parties, and interpreting 
the term as expressive solely of the propitiatory or pacificating work 


on which the actual union or reconciliation is supposed to rest. This 


propitiation, moreover, is supposed, by a large portion of the Christian 
world, to involve a designation of the particular objects to whom it 
shall be applied, and who are determined by a so-called decree of 
election. From this designation it is usually understood that the 
heathen are excluded, being shut up under the ban of reprobation. 
Every one feels indeed the pressure of the problem on this score, 
but as it is the inevitable logical result of the theory advocated, 
its upholders sit down silent, if not quiet, under the oppressive burden 
of doubt which itimposes. While they shudder at the thought of such 


=" = -- 


+ se 


~The Atonement. | 117 


tremendously preponderating masses of the race sinking into the yawn- 
ing abyss of .an eternal hell, the authority of the dogma still.schools 
the impulses of their hearts into acquiescence with the dread result. 
On the principles of the New Church this difficulty disappears. We 
are taught by them that as the divine influence is not confined to the 
understanding, but flows into the affections, so those among the hea- 
then who live a good life according to the dictates of their religion, 
are saved to the measure of their capacity, and in the other life re- 
ceive such instructions from the angels as shall bring them to the ae- 
knowledgment of the truths that are in accordance with their good. 
The nature of the influx now descending from the Lord in his glori- 
fied state, is suchas to dispense with the absolute necessity of the 
written Word as the medium of salvation. The Word is indeed of 
pre-eminent value to those who possess it, as being the grand vehicle 
of the Divine Truth, and the instrumental means of conjunction with 
heaven; but the virtue of the Lord’s incarnation and redemption 
reaches the wills of men where the light of revelation does not reach 
their understandings, and spiritual life has its seat in the will rather 
than in the intellect. This position, however, no more enforces the 
‘nference that all the heathen are saved, than we are to infer that 
such influences in Christian lands are available to the salvation of 
all who enjoy them. Man is universally left to the freedom of his 
own will. Heaven is not forced upon any one, whether Christian or 
Pagan, Jew or Gentile, Barbarian or Scythian, bond or free. 

But the bearing of this and of every Christian doctrine upon life is 
after all the grand test. Tried by this standard we do not see how 
the inference can be avoided, that the system which we have above 
set forth, as held by the mass of the Protestant Church, is to be pro- 
nounced wanting. It is clear beyond dispute that its requisitions are 
made mainly on faith and not on love or life ; but faith pertains pri- 
marily to the understanding, while love is referable to the heart or 
will. Now the life is invariably the expression of the love, and not 
of the intellect. Whatever a man loves supremely, that he will act 
out and ultimate in his life. But what is the scope of love on the 
scheme presented? It is at best but the love of gratitude. Tts lan- 
guage is :-—’ The Lord has been so unspeakably kind and merciful 
as to touch my hard heart with the finger of his love, and to write 
me, against all my deserts, an heir of heaven ; and shall I not, there- 
fore, henceforth direct towards him the full ardor of my renovated 
affections 7” I would not, be it observed, speak disparagingly of love 
on this score, in itself considered, but who would not say that 
there is a higher form of love than gratitude? A man who has 
generously risked his life to save another from drowning or from the 
hands of pirates, may be held in grateful and affectionate remembrance 
for so noble and benevolent an act; but he surely would not prize this 
form of love as he would that which fixed itself upon him for his own 
sake-—for the various moral qualities calculated to engage affection. 
So in regard to the Divine Being. He is in himself, without relation 
to us, infinitely lovely, and it is upon this character mainly that all 
genuine love fixes. 


118 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XI. 


Now this we affirm to be the distinguishing principle of the New 
Church. Its very essence is love to the Lord, and love to the neigh- 
bor, and it is the restoration of this love that was the object and aim 
of the incarnation and atonement. And as love is the fulfilling of 
the law, we take the precepts of the Decalogue as the great rule of 
life, and without, in some good degree, keeping these commandments 
we know there is no such thing as entering into life. We repudiate 
altogether a species of faith which is a supersedeas to good works, 
and the legitimate operation of which is described in the following 
extract. 


“Let every one therefore beware of this heresy, that man is justified by 
faith without the works of the law, for he who is in it, and does not fully re- 
cede from it before his life’s end, after death associates with infernal genii; 
for they are the goats, of whom the Lord says, ‘ Depart from Me, ye cursed, into 
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. xxv. 41); for of 
the goats the Lord does not say that they did evil, but that they did not do 
good; the reason why they did not do good is, because they say to them- 
selves, ‘I cannot do good from myself, the law does not condemn me, the 
blood of Christ cleanses me and delivers me, the passion of the cross has 
taken away the sentence of sin, the merit of Christ is imputed to me through 
faith, I am reconciled to the Father, am under grace, am regarded as a son, 
and our sius He reputes as infirmities, which He instantly forgives for the 
sake of His Son, thus does He justify by faith alone, and unless this was the 
sole medium of salvation, no mortal could be saved ; for what other end did 
the Son of God suffer on the cross, and fulfil the law, but to remove the sen- 
tence of condemnation for our transgressions ? Thus do they reason with 
themselves, and in consequence thereof do not do any good which is good in 
itself, for out of their faith alone, which is nothing but a faith of knowledges, 
in itself historical faith, consequently nothing but science, no good works 
proceed: for it is a dead faith, into which no life and soul enters, unless a 
man immediately approaches the Lord, and shuns evils as sins as of himself, 
in which case the good which he does as of himself, is from the Lord, aud 
consequently is good in itself; on which subject it is thus written, in Isaiah: 
‘Wo unto the sinful nation, laden with iniquity, a seed of evil doers, children 
that are corrupted; when ye spread forth your hands, I hide mine eyes from 
you, even though ye multiply prayers I hear not: wash you, make you 
clean, remove the evil of your works from before mine eyes, cease to do evil, 
learn to do good: then, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white 
as snow; though they be red like purple, they shall be as wool Gi. 4, 15, 16, 
17, 18)"—A. E, 1250. 


But how, on the other hand, must the Decalogue be regarded by 
those who rely solely on faith as the ground of their salvation? In 
the nature of the case they must look upon it as a very ancient and 
venerable document, given, as to the letter and form, some three. or 
four thousand years ago, in very solemn circumstances, though it 
had existed in fact from the beginning, and which was as really 
broken in its spirit by our father Adam, as it was in its tables of 
stone by Moses, and which we can no more keep than we can now 
journey to Mount Sinai and gather up the sacred fragments into 
which it was shivered by the pious zeal of the leader of Israel. Con- 
sequently the works of obedience to that law have virtually no more. 
demand upon us as believers in Christ. We have come out from 
under it, and as we are not to be judged by it, its demands are essen- 


———_ Oe 


—- 


a ad 


oe 


at 


The Atonement.” : 119". 


tially vacated and abrogated in regard to us, It will be seen accord- 
ingly that by the advocates of the solifidian theory, all those pas- 
sages which are found in the Gospels insisting upon works, are 
strangely overlooked. They do not see them. However palpable to 
others, they do not come within the field of their vision. As Cowper 
says ;— ) 


“ The text that suits not to his darling whim, 
Though clear to others, is obscure to him.” 


Why is it, otherwise, that such perpetual reference is made to 
texts that speak of believing in Christ? We are indeed to believe in 
him, not however, as a ground of exemption from the fulfilment of 
the law, but as-a medium of ability for fulfilling the law. If we 
have recourse to his own words in cases’ where he answered inquiries 
as to the terms of salvation, we shall by no means find that his 
answer was uniformly to believe in him as the very first and para- 
mount duty. In some instances he commands: the selling of one’s 
goods, of parting, with all to the poor, and coming and following 
him. In others he directs immediately to the keeping of the com- 
mandments. In others to the doing good to the neighbor, like the 
good Samaritan. In others, the first duty is love to the brethren. 
And in the epistles we learn that “ pure religion and undefiled before 
God and the Father is to visit the fatherless and widows in their 
affliction and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” What then 
can be more evident than that life is the grand requisition, the 
crowning command, of the Gospel? And yet is any thing more 
palpable than that a view of Atonement which suspends salvation 
upon a naked Act of faith is most adverse to the claims of a life of 
charity and use ? 

I have thus endeavored, according to my ability, to disclose the 
essential distinguishing characteristics of two very diverse systems 
of religious doctrines—_the one a doctrine of faith, the other a doctrine 
of life. You will not fail to perceive that if the one is true, the other 
must inevitably be false. If the one be light, the other is darkness, 
and if darkness, how great is that darkness! In looking abroad upon 
the actual state of the Christian world, is there not too much reason 
for resting in the justice of Swedenborg’s declaration, that the Church 
that has been has actually come to an end—that it is morally de- 
funct before God. Not but that there may be good men and good 
women existing in the membership of such churches; but they are 
the exception and not the rule. There is, doubtless, both goodness 
and truth in the creeds and in the conduct of those churches; but this 
goodness and truth is so vitiated, adulterated, and falsified by per- 
nicious mixtures of evil and error, that a new Church, founded upon 
charity and. life, is indispensable to the moral welfare of the world. 
That such a church has been founded and entered upon its incipiency 
we are happy to believe. It is a Church which fully retains every 
cardinal and essential truth involved in the prevailing systems, and, 
at the same time, repudiates all their errors. It utterly disclaims all 


120° :- Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XII. 


merit on the part of the creature, and makes the most sincere and un- 
reserved ascription of all power and ability for good to the Lord him- 
self, and thus meets the demand of the most self-renouncing and man- 
abasing Calvinist. On the other hand, it insists, in the most strenuous 
terms, upon the highest active agency in working out our salvation 
and bringing forth the fruits of righteousness, and thus satisfies the 
most rigid Arminian. Again, it holds for the Trinitarian a real and 
threcfold distinction in the Divine nature, answering to Father, Son, 
and Holy Ghost, and, at the same time, meets the Unitarian by deny- 
ing that these three distinctions are three persons, and thus maintains 
with him the most absolute unity of the Godhead. It does, indeed, 
hold that this unity is concentrated in the Lord Jesus Christ, than 
whom we know no ether God in the universe, and this the Unitarian 
must receive if hecan. But whether he does or not, it does not affect 
the stability of our assurance, that if there is such a book asthe Bible, 
and it teaches a single truth to be believed by the human mind, it 
teaches as plainly as “words can wield the matter,” the supreme, 
sole,and exclusive Deity of Jesus Christ. For that Jesus is Jehovah is 
taught in so many words, and no one can maintain that there are 
two Jehovahs. 

We ask ourselves, then,—we ask our fellow-men—whether the view 
now presented has not all the evidence that can be rationally desired 
of being in very deed the truth of God. Can that be the true inter- 
pretation of Christianity which exalts faith above charity and life, or 
which indicates any other mode of salvation than keeping the Com- 
mandments ? ' 


Yours, &e. 


LETTER XII. 


PRACTICAL RESULTS. 


*€ Upon a just idea of God, the universal heaven, andthe church universal: on earth, are 
founded, and in general the whole of religion; for by that idea there is conjunction, and 
by conjunction, light, wisdom, and eternal happiness.” ~—Swedenborg—Preface to A. R. 


DEAR SIR, 


Tug earnest advocate who attempts to plead the cause of Scriptural 
truth has not unfrequently a double task to perform ; first, to vindi- 
cate the apprehended or alleged truth from error ; secondly, to show 
that it is a truth worth vindicating—the latter not seldom the most 
difficult task of the two. It is, however, a requisition that will 
hardly hold in the present case. You cannot fail to agree with me 
in assigning the highest possible estimate to the importance of the 
doctrine of our Lord’s essential Divinity, however you may refuse to 
concede the soundness and the scripturalness of the view which I 
have thus far aimed to present. With one who maintains so stren- 


 — ee te ee 


Practical Results. 121 


uously as you do the supremacy of the claims of inspiration to 
govern our views of religious doctrine, it cannot be necessary to con- 
Struct a formal argument to prove, that if the conclusions already 
announced do in fact accord with the genuine teachings of scripture, 
they are of transcendent moment to every Christian man. The only 
question which you and I can debate is, whether the doctrine of the 
Lord, as taught by Swedenborg, is really the doctrine of the Lord 
as taught by Himself and his Apostles. This question I, on my part, 
have largely discussed in the foregoing series of Letters. The 
ground already, traversed it will be needless again to go over. I 
would simply reaffirm my previous positions, and close this branch of 
the argument by adverting to some results which seem to grow na- 
turally out of it. 

You will of course have seen that, throughout the discussion, | 
have claimed to present the true, and the only true, view of the 
scriptural. doctrine of our Lord’s nature as conjointly divine and 
human, and becoming known to us as Jehovah-Jesus, God-man in 
one person, in which person subsists the Trinity of Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit. For the correctness of this view, I have adduced a 
long array of evidences, which may or may not have carried weight 
to your mind. The light however in which you regard them does not 
affect their intrinsic character.. They are as valid after rejection as 
before. In my own estimate, the ground assumed is impregnable, 
but you are of course at liberty to demonstrate the contrary if you 
feel competent to do it; and deem it expedient to be dotie. Assuming, 
meantime, the validity of my conclusions, I proceed to exhibit, from 
the sources from which J have hitherto drawn, certain practical issues 
that will be seen to be important just in proportion to the soundness 
of the data on which they rest. These issues bear equally upon the 
prevalent Trinitarian and the prevalent Unitarian tenet on this head. 
Viewed in the light of Swedenborg’s exposé of the doctrine, they 
both involve an essential denial of the cardinal truth of the Incarna- 
tion of Jehovah, the true basis of the divine work of Redemption. 
They therefore necessarily lay themselves open to the consequences 
which it is my present purpose to unfold—consequences, as you will 
see. far, very far, from being of slight concern to those who are 
chargeable with them, while at the same time they leave the system 
inaccessible to the stigma of uncharitableness, intolerance, or big- 
otry, to which at first blush it might seem to render itself liable. 

Nothing, you are well:aware, is more frequent in our Lord’s dis- 
courses, than the solemn affirmation of the absolute necessity of a 
true knowledge of, and a true faith in, Him, in order to eternal life. 
The grounds of this: necessity is the point to which you will allow 
rne to call your attention, and if I draw freely upon Swedenborg in 
support of my remarks, it will be simply because I regard him as 
having drawn largely and directly upon the fountain of eternal truth, 
However it might appear to a superficial view that the demand of a 
cordial belief in the divine testimony was an arbitrary demand, and 
to be obeyed simply from a religious respect and reverence for the 
Divine will, yet, upon deeper reflection, it will be seen to result from 


122 Letters to a Trinittarian.—Letier XII. 


the very nature and necessity of things. It is evident that all saving | 
truth, communicated by God to man, must not only be intellectually 
apprehended, but cordially acknowledged. It must be received not 
merely with cognition, but also with agnition, as otherwise it barely 
floats through the understanding, and lodges itself in the memory, 
the outer court of the mind, where it is as far from being practically 
received and incorporated into the life, as is a sparrow from be- 
coming a worshiper, merely because she builds her nest near the 
altar of the Lord’s house.. But .even acknowledgment, unless 
prompted by the affection of the heart, comes short ef being the pro- 
per entertainment of divine truth, as it comes short of genuine faith. 
“Tt is one thing,” says Swedenborg, “to know truths, another to 
acknowledge them, and yet another to have faith in them. Merely 
to know what relates to faith, is an act of the memory, without the 
consent of the rational principle ; to acknowledge what is of faith is 
the assent of the rational principle, influenced by certain causes, 
and with a view to certain ends; but to have faith is an act of the 
conscience, or of the Lord, operating by means of conscience.”—(A. 
C. 896.) 

We may safely affirm, then, that in order to the adequate reception 
of all Divine truth, and especially of that which is of the highest 
import, there must be in the recipient a certain subjective state of 
adaptation, congruity, or accordance with the truth which is to be 
believed. As J endeavored to show in a previous letter, truth divine 
comes into the mind by influx from its Author, somewhat as light 
comes to the eye from the sun, and unless it finds the fitting vessels 
in the spiritual organization of the soul, an adapted or orderly re- 
ception is impossible. 

We can scarcely gain an adequate conception on this head without 
mentally divesting man of his body and resolving him into his last 
analysis, which is that of understanding and will, or intellect and 
affection. Suppose him in this condition of elementary being to be 
brought into contact with the Deity as the source of his happiness, is 
it not obvious that there must of necessity be a reciprocal congruity 
or inter-adaptation between the great truth of the Divine nature and 
character, and the intellectual and moral state of the recipient 
spirit? This mutual relation may be illustrated by that which sub- 
sists between the atmosphere and. the human lungs in the matter of 
respiration. Unless the lungs were so formed as to be receptive of 
the aerial influx, the respiratory function could never be performed, 
In like manner, unless the intrinsic status of the human mind be in 
accordant relation with those attributes and aspects of the Divine 
nature in which it is presented, it is plainly impossible that a saving 
conjunciion between the soul and God can ever take place. | 

The use which I have now made of the word conjunction defines, 
in fact, what I conceive, and what you will perhaps grant to be the 
true and fundamental idea of salvation. For a created, intelligent 
being like man, there is no such thing as salvation but in interior 
vital union with the Lord as the self-subsisting and infinite fountain 
of life and bliss. But as the very ground-elements of the Divine na- 
ture are Goodness and Truth, or Love and Wisdom, so it is requisite 


Practical dresulte. : 123 


that there should be a deep-laid conformity to that nature in the spi- 
ritual state of the creature, and such a spiritual state is in fact a spr- 
ritual organism. It is only in such a state that Divine truth can be 
cordially acknowledged, for as truth is the actuality or verity of things, 
the state of the soul must be in unison with the state of the things 
with which it is to be united, in order that the heartfelt acknowledge- 
ment of the truth may ensue. Let the soul be once in that moral 
posture which quadrates with the reality of things, and the profoundest 
and sincerest acknowledgement will be the result, an acknowledgment 
not so much of the lips as of the heart. an 

Abiding then in the soundness of the principle thus far maintained, 
the great question of questions which is at the foundation of the whole 
debate is, What is the precise idea of the Lord which corresponds with 
the truth 1—for it is by that idea, with its appropriate affection, that 
the soul is conjoined to the Lord and in that conjunction, and in that 
only, is salvation. To this question there is, I conceive, but one an- 
swer. The only correct idea of the Lord, as revealed in the Word, is 
that which answers to the following formula: “ That Jehovah God. 
the Creator and Preserver of heaven and earth, is Love Itself and 
Wisdom Itself, or Good Itself and Truth Itself. That He is one, both 
in essence and inperson, in whom, nevertheless, is the Divine ‘Trinity 
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are the Essential Divinity, 
the Divine Humanity, and the Divine Proceeding, answering to the 
soul, the body, and the operative energy in man: and that the Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ is that God.” 

This, then, is the paramount asserted and constitutive truth of the 
New Jerusalem——the essential Divinity and the assumed but now 
glorified Humanity, co-existing in the one person of the Lord the 
Saviour, in whom also is the divine trinity of Father, Son, and Holy 
Spirit, equivalent to the three distinct principles of Love, Wisdom, 
and Operation in the Divine nature, and shadowed out in soul, body, 
and act, as pertaining to man and angel. The true conception, there- 
fore, will be that of One and not of Three, except as three combined 
in one, in the sense just enunciated, so that the idea of unity shall 
still be predominant. This august verity, as we are informed by 
Swedenborg, is expressly revealed “ for the comfort and instruction of 
those who shall be admitted into the New Jerusalem.” It is the very 


‘badge of discipleship and fellowship in that divine dispensation. No 


one who receives this grand truth in heart and life is really without 
the New Church; no one who rejects it ea animo is within it. The 
declarations on this head are very explicit, as will appear from the 
following extracts, which I give without reserve, because | am not 
at liberty to disguise from myself or others any important shade of a 
doctrine upon which such momentous consequences depend. 


“ They who live within the pale of the Church, aad do not acknowledge 
the Lord Jesus Christ and his Divinity, can have no vnion with God; and of 
consequence can have no place with the angels in heaven; for no one can be 
nnited with God but by the Lord and in the Lord 1%—H. D. 283. 


* << By’ the Lord the Redeemer we mean Jehovah in the Human ; for that Jehovah 
himself descended and assumed the tiuman, for the purpose of accomplishing redemp- 


124 Letters tod Trinitarian.—Letter XIU. 


“ All who belong to the church, and are under the influence of light from 
heaven, see and discern the Divine nature in the Lord Jesus Christ; but such 
as are not under the influence of light from heaven see and discern in Him only 
the human nature; when nevertheless the Divinity aud the Humanity are SO 
united together in Him as to make one person: for so he Himself declares ; 
‘Father, all mine are thine and thine are mine.’ %— 16, 285. 


- 


‘They who entertain an idea of three persons in their conceptions of the 
Godhead, cannot possibly have an idea of one God; for though they say with 
their Lps there is but one God, yet in their’ minds they conceive three. , But 
they who in their conceptions of the Godhead entertain an idea of a Trinity in 
one person may have an idea of one God, and both with their lips and with 
their hearts confess that there is but one.”—Jb. 289. . 


“ The first and grand fundamental of the Church is to know and acknow- 
ledge its God; for without such acknowledgment there can be no conjunction 
with Him.”—J6. 236. 


‘ All who come into heaven have their place allotted them there, and thence 
everlasting joy, according to their idea of God, because this idea reigns uni- 
versally in every particular of worship; the idea of an invisible God is not 
determined to auy God, nor does it terminate in any, therefore it ceases and 
perishes; the idea of God as a spirit, when.a spirit is thought of as ether or 
air, is au empty idea; but the idea of God asa man, is a just idea, for God is 
divine love and divine wisdom, with every quality belonging thereto, and the 
subject of these is man, and not ether or wind. The idea of God in heaven 
is the idea of the Lord, he being the God of heaven and earth, as he himself 
taught. Of how great importance it is to have a just idea of God may appear. 
from this consideration, that the idea of God constitutes the inmost thought of 
all those who have any religion, for all things of religion and divine worship 
have respect unto God; and inasmuch as God is universally and particularly 
in all things of religion and worship, therefore unless it be a just idea of God, 
no communication can be given with the heavens. Hence it is that in the 
spiritual world every nation has its place according to its idea of God asa 
man, for in this and in no other is the idea of the Lord.”—J0. 163. 


As the view of the subject I am now endeavoring to present is ob- 
- viously one of the most urgent and imperative claims upon the 
church, if true, you will pardon the insertion of a somewhat extend- 
ed paragraph from Swedenborg. He is speaking of interior rejection 
of the Lord. 


“The Lord is said to be rejected, when he is not approached and worship- 
ed, aud also when he is approached and worshiped only as to his human 


tion, will be demonstrated in what follows. The reason why it is said the Lord, and not 
Jehovah, is because Jehovah, in the Old Testament, is called the Lord in the New, as is 
evident from these passages: it is said in Moses, ‘ Hear, O Israel, Jehovah your God is one 
Jehovah; and thou shalt love Jehovah thy God with all thy heart and with all. thy sou? 
(Deut vi..4, 5); but in Mark, ‘The Lord your God is one Lord, and thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul’ (xii. 29, 30). Also in Tsaiah, 
‘Prepare a way for Jehovah ; make smooth in’the desert a path for our God’ (Ix. 3); but 
in Luke, ¢‘ Thou shalt go before the face of the Lord, .to prepare a way for him’ (i. 76); 
besides in other passages. Aud also the Lord commanded his disciples to call H m Lord, 
and therefore He was so called by the apostles, in their Epistles, and afterwards by the 
apostolic church, as appears from their creed, which is ealled the ‘ Apostle’s Creed.’ The 
reason was, becanse the Jews durst not use the name Jehovah, on account of its sanctity ; 
and also, by Jehovah is meant the Divine Esse, which was from eternity, and the Human, 
which he assumed in time, was not that Esse. For this reason, here, and in what fol- 
lows, by the Lord, we mean Jehovah in his Human.”—T'. C. R. «1, ‘ 


Practical Results. : 125. 


principle, and not at the same time as to his divine; wherefore at this day he 
is rejected by those within the church who do not approach and worship 
him, but pray to the Father to have compassion on them for the sake of the 
Son, when notwithstanding no man, or angel, can even approach the Father, 
and immediately worship him, for the divinity is invisible, with which no one 
can be conjoined in faith.and love; for that- which is invisible does not fall 
into the idea of thought, nor, consequently, into the affection of the will; and 
what does not fall into the idea of thought, does not fall into the faith, for 
what pertains to the faith must be an object of thought. So likewise. what 
does not enter into the affection of the will, does not enter into the love, for 
the things which pertain to the love, must affect the will of man, as all the 
love which.man has resides in the will. But the Divine Human Principle of 
the Lord falls into the idea of thought, and thus into faith, and thence into the 
affection of the will, or into the love ; hence it is evident, that there is no con- 
junction with the Fatherunless from the Lord, and in the Lord.’ This the 
Lord himself teaches very clearly in the Evangelists; as in John: *No one 
hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of 
the Father, he hath declared him’ (i. 18). Again, ‘Ye have neither heard his 
voice at any time, nor seen his shape’ (v. 37). And in Matthew, ‘ Neither 
knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Sou will 
reveal him’ (xi. 27). Andin John: ‘Iam the Way, and the Truth, and the 
Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me’ (xiv. 6). Again, ‘If ye had 
known me, ye should have known my Father also; he that hath seen me 
hath seen the Father; believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the 
Father in me? believe me, that-I am in the Father, and the Father in me 
(xiv. 7-11). ‘I and my Father are one’ (x. 30, 38). Again, ‘I am the vine, ye 
are the branches; without me ye can do nothing? (Xv. 9). Hence it is plain, 
that the Lord is rejected by those within the church, who immediately ap- 
proach the Father, and pray to him to have compassion for the sake of the 
Son; for these cannot do otherwise than think of the humanity of the Lord as 
of the humanity of another man, not at the same time of his Divinity in the 
humanity, and still less of his Divinity conjoined with his humanity, as the 
soul is conjoined with the body, according to the doctrine universally re- 
ceived in the Christian world. Who, in the Christian world, that acknow- 
ledges the Divinity of the Lord, is willing that this acknowledgment should 
be such as to place his divine principle out of his human ; when nevertheless 
to think of the human principle alone, and not at the same time of the divine 
in the human, is to view them separate, which is not to view the Lord, nor 
both as one person, when yet the doctrine received in the Christian world is, 
that the Divinity and Humanity of the Lord make not two persons, but one 
person? They who constitute the church at this day do, indeed, think con- 
cerning the divine principle of the Lord in his human, when they speak from 
the doctrine of the church, but altogether otherwise when they think and 
speak with themselves without that doctrine ; but let it be known, that man 
‘s in one state when he thinks and speaks from doctrine, and in another when 
he thinks and speaks withoutit. Whilst man thinks and speaks from doctrine, 
his thought and speech are from the memory of his natural man; but when 
he thinks and speaks out of doctrine, his thought and speech are then from 
his spirit ; for to think and speak from the spirit, is to think and speak from 
the interiors of his mind, wherefore what he thence speaks is his real faith. 
From these considerations it also appears how it is to be understood, that the 
Lord is rejected at this day by those who are within the church, namely, that 
from doctrine indeed it is allowed that the Divinity of the Lord is to be ac- 
knowledged and believed in the same degree as the Divinity of the Father, 
for the doctrine of the church teaches, ‘that as is the Father, so also is the 
Son, uncreate, infinite, eternal, omnipotent, God, Lord, neither of them greater 
or less, before or after the other.’ Notwithstanding this, however, they do not 
worship the Lord as divine, but worship the Divinity of the Father, as is the 
case when they pray to the Father, that he may have compassion on them 
for the sake of his Son, and when they use these words, they do not at all. 


126 Letters to a Trinttarien. Letter XIT. 


think of the divine principle of the Lord, but of his human separate from the 
divine, thus of his humanity, as similar to that of another man. On such oc 


casions they think not of one God, but of two, or three. To think thus con- - 


cerning the Lord, is to reject him; for not to think of his divine principle in 
conjunction with his human, is by separation to exclude the divine, which 
nevertheless are not two persons but one person, and make a one as soul and 
body.”—A. E. 114. | 


From all this, the inference is very clear that a conception of the 
Lord, according to the‘absolute truth of his being and attributes, is 
all important in order to salvation ; and the ground of this is, that in 
no other way can that conjunction take place which is the very es- 
sence of eternal life. It is here pre-eminently that the distinctive 
character of the New Church appears conspicuous. It worships a 
visible God with whom there may be conjunction. 


“The reason why this New Church is the crown of all churches that have, 


heretofore existed on this earthly globe is, because it will worship one visible 
God, in whom is the invisible God, as the soul is in the body; and the true 
ground and reason why the conjunction of God with man is thus, and in no 
other way, possible, is, because man is natural, and consequently thinks na- 
turally, and conjunction is effected in thought, and thereby in the affection of 
love, and such conjunction takes place when man thinks of God as a man. 
Conjunction with an invisible God is like the conjunction of ocular vision with 
the expanse of the universe, of which it sees no end; it is also like vision in 
the midst of the ocean, which falls on air and water, and is lost in their im- 
mensity ; but conjunction with a visible God is like the sight of aman in the air 
or the sea, stretching forth bis hands and inviting to his embraces ; for all con- 
‘junction of God with man must be likewise reciprocal on the part of man with 
God, and this is not possible but with a visible God.”—T. C. R. 787. 


I am well aware, however, that in speaking of conjunction with the 
Lord as salvation, lam using a term that is for the most part ex-. 
tremely unwelcome and unpalatable to those whose theological sys- 
tem is run in the moulds of Wittemberg, Geneva, or Westminster. 
Having formed to themselves the idea of a salvation founded on vi- 
carious atonement and made available by means of forensic imputa- 
tion, they inevitably cherish a latent aversion to a term which in- 
volves, by implication, a virtual denial of the whole scheme, and re- 
solves the very element of religious principle into harmonious and 
vital union with the Lord. They cannot well refrain from charging 
it as mystical, to say nothing of the disparagement that some may 
throw upon it by representing it as really subversive of the work of 
Christ viewed as a satisfaction for sin, and as confounding justifica- 
tion with sanctification. But all this passes with the man of the New 
Church unheeded as objection, though awakening sad sentiments as 
evidence of moral state in the objector. With such a ground work 
for our position as we find laid in the following extracts, we should be 
strangely wanting to ourselves to abate an iota of the strength of our 
confidence in its impregnability. 


“Tnasmuch as the church at this day does not know that conjunction with 
the Lord constitutes heaven, and that conjunction is effected by the acknowl 
edgment that he is the God of heaven and earth, and at the same time by a 
life according to his commandments, therefore jt may be expedient to say 


mJ 


t, 


ee ee ee Se ee 


Practical Results. 127 


something on this subject. A person.altogether ignorant of these matters may 
possibly say, What signifies conjunction? kow can acknowledgment and life 
occasion conjunction ? what need is there of these things? may not every 
one be saved from mercy alone? what need is there then for any other me- 
dium of salvation but faith alone ? is not God merciful and omnipotent? But 
let him know, that in the spiritual world all presence is effected by knowledge 
and acknowledgment, and that all conjunction 1s effected by affection which is 
oflove. . . . . Faith and the consequent presence of the Lordis given by the 
knowledges of the truths of the Word, especially by those concerning the Lord 
himself there, but love and consequent conjunction is given by a life accord- 
ing to his commandments, for the Lord saith, ‘ He that hath my commandments 
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me, and I will love him, and will manifest 
myself to him’ (John xiv. 21)."—A. R. 913. 


“The very essential principle of the Church is the acknowledgment of the 
union of the Divine itself in the Human of the Lord, and this must be in all and 
singular the things of worship. The reason why this is an essential of the 
Church, and hence an essential of worship is, because the salvation of the hu- 
man race depends solely on that union.”—A. C, 10,370. 


f 

If then the idea of God in heaven be the idea of the Lord Jesus 
Christ in his Divine Humanity, and saving conjunction with him can 
ensue only from this view of his nature, surely the idea of a tri-per- 
sonal Deity is not only false in itself, but, if confirmed, absolutely 
destructive of genuine truth and fatal to the possibility of that con- 
junction in which salvation is enwrapped.*. Equally disastrous to 
the interests of the soul is the Unitarian tenet when fully inwrought 
into the deepest convictions of the holder, because it is equally at 
war with that essential truth with which the spirit of man must be 
in what we may term organical accordance in order to be saved. It 
is one of the prominent positions of Swedenborg that “every man is 
his own will and his own understanding ; because the will is the 
receptacle of love and thus of all the goods which are of that love, 
and the understanding is the receptacle of wisdom, and thus of all 
the things of truth which are of that wisdom, it follows, that every 
man is his own love and his own wisdom; or, what is the same, his 
own good and his own truth. Man is not man from any thing else, 
and not any thing else with him is man. He who thinks, and speaks 
nothing but truth, becomes that truth; and he who wills and does 
nothing but good, becomes that good.” If this be so—and I see not 
‘how it can be denied—the same principle must hold good as to what 
one holds and believes to be truth, though in reality it be falsity ; 
consequently, as a man’s apprehension of truth becomes the very 
form of his being, as its goods does its essence, how can this being 
be to him a source of happiness unless the belief within him corres- 
ponds to the truth without him ? 

That the positions above assumed should be at one time of a more 
urgent and imperative character than at another might seem at first 
blush incredible, but the following passage implies that causes are 


* « Thoy who are in falsities, and yet'in the good of life, according to their religion, 
cannot be saved until their falsities are removed, so that truths may be implanted in their 
place.”—A. E. 478. 


128 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XII. 


operating at the present day to give additional solemnity and sanction 
to the conclusions already announced. | 


“To confirm this further, I will relate what I know, because I have seen, and 
therefore I can testify what follows ; that the Lord, at this day, is forming a 
new angelic heaven, and that it is formed of those who believe in the Lord 
God the Saviour, and go immediately to Him; and that the rest are rejected. 
Wherefore, if any one hereafter comes from Christendom into the spiritual 
world, into which every man does come after death, and does not believe in 
the Lord, and go to Him alone, and then is not able to receive this, because he 
lived wickedly, or has confirmed himself in falses, he is repelled at his first ap- 
proach towards heaven. Every man also in Christian countries, who does not 
believe in the Lord, is not, hereafter heard with acceptance; his prayers, in 
heaven, are like ill-scented odors, and like eructations from ulcerated lungs; 
and if he thinks that his prayer is like the perfume of incense, still it does not 
ascend to the angelic heaven, otherwise than as the smoke of a fire, which is 
driven back by a violent tempest, into his eyes, or as the perfume from a cen- 
ser undera monk’s cloak; thus, after this time, it is with all piety which is de- 
termined to a divided trinity, and not to one conjoined.”—T’ C. R. 108. 


This will no doubt be set down by many as the mere overflowing 
of the gall of bitterness with which the spirit of the writer is sup- 
posed to be surcharged whenever he comes to speak of those who 
hold the views generally entertained in the Christian world. It will 
be regarded as of a piece with his emphatic declaration (D. N. J. 
289), that “they who entertain an idéa of three persons in their con- 
ceptions of the Godhead, cannot possibly have an idea of one God; 
for though they say with their lips that there is but one God; yet in 
their minds they conceive three. But they who, in their conceptions 
of the Godhead, entertain an idea of a Trinity in one person may 
have an idea of one.God, and both with their lips and with their 
hearts confess that there is but one.” ‘This of course must be left to 
the judgment of each individual reader. However much it may 
savor of intolerance, it is still to be pronounced upon according to 
the weight of the reasons on which the sentence is founded. It may 
go somewhat, I trust, to soften the apparent asperity of the state- 
ment for the reader of it to be informed, that Swedenborg teaches no 
other exclusion from the happiness of heaven than that which is ne- 
cessary, resulting from the dominant moral state of the person. He 
knows nothing of any immediate and arbitrary act of the Divine will 
~ ordaining such a lot of rejection. No one is shut out of the blissful 
mansions but he who shuts himself out. 

But J am here reminded of the frequent protestations made on the 
score of the views actually entertained by Trinitarians in regard to 
the subjects which I have thus far discussed. The tritheistic tendency, 
which is all along virtually alleged of the current doctrines of the 
Divine nature, is stoutly denied, and the assertions of New Church 
writers charged as little short of a downright slander upon a large 
body of religionists. To this again I reply in the first instance by 
exhibiting Swedenborg’s testimony on this head, and submitting the 
question of its truth to the candid decision of yourself and others into 
whose hands the present discussion may chance to fall. 


Practical Results. 129 


“At the end of the Church the Lord is indeed preached, and also from doc- 
trine Divinity is attributed to Him like to the Divinity of the Father; but not- 
withstanding scarce any one thinks of his Divinity, by reason of their placing 
it above or without His Humanity, wherefore when they look to His Divinity 
they do not look to the Lord, but to the Father as to another; when notwith- 
standing the Divinity, which is called the Father, is in the Lord, as He Himself 
teaches in John, chap. x. 30, 38; chap. xiv. 7: hence it is that man does not 
think of the Lord otherwise than as of a common man, and from that thought 
flows his faith, howsoever he may say with his lips that he believes His 
Divinity : let any one explore, if he can, the idea of his thought concerning 
the Lord, whether it be not such as is here described, and when it is such, he 
cannot be conjoiued to Him in faith and love, nor by conjunction receive any 
good of love and truth of faith: hence then it is, that in the end of the Church, 
there is not any acknowledgment of the Lord, that is, of the Divine [principle] 
in the Lord and from the Lord: it appears, indeed, as if the Divine [principle] 
of the Lord was acknowledged, because it is affirmed in the doctrine of the 
Church; but whilst the Divine [principle] is separated from His Human, His 
Divine [principle] is not yet acknowledged inwardly, but only outwardly, and 
to acknowledge it outwardly 1s to acknowledge it only with the mouth, and 
not in the heart, or with speech only, and not in faith. That this is the case, 
may appear from Christians in the other life, where the thoughts of the heart 
are manifested: when it is granted them to speak from doctrine, and from 
what they have heard from preaching, then they attribute Divinity to the Lord, 
and call it their faith; but when their interior thought and faith is explored, 
it isfound that they have a different idea concerning the Lord, which is as of a 
common man, to whom nothing divine can be attributed : the interior thought 
of man is the real ground of his faith, wherefore, such being the thought and 
thence the faith of his spirit, it is evident, that there is not any acknowledg- 
ment of the Divine [principle] i the Lord and from the Lord, in the Christian 
world, at the end of the Church. Ina word, there is indeed an external ac- 
knowledgment of the Divine [principle] of the Lord, but no internal, and exter- 
nal-acknowledgment is of the natural man alone, but internal acknowledgment 
is of his spirit itself; and the external is laid deep after death, but the internal, 
being of his spirit, remains.’—A. E, 649. 


The present, according to Swedenborg, is the period of the “ end 
of the Church,” that is, of the Christian church, both Protestant and 
Roman, because this, as we learn, is the period of the Second 
Advent, when the former church is consummated by the extinction of 
charity and consequently of true faith, and a new one, the church 
of the New Jerusalem, is established. In this state of things, while 
the Divinity of Christ is ostensibly maintained, our author affirms 
that it is really denied, inasmuch as the Divinity and Humanity are 
in effect so completely sundered from each other in the popular con- 
ception, that the one stands as the representative of the sole Jehovah 
or the Father, while the latter sinks to the level of the common 
manhood of the race, so that the genuine doctrine of a Trinity is in 
effect dissipated into thin air. The truth is, the idea of a threefold 
principle or character in one person is the only true idea of the 
Scriptural Trinity, and this idea can never be entertained but when 
it is perceived that the Divinity itself or the Father, the Divine Hu- 
manity or the Son, and the Divine Proceeding or Holy Ghost, are all 
concentrated in the single person of our Lord, Jesus of Nazareth, 
the Saviour of the world. Let any one who thinks he can entertain 
an idea of one God existing in three separate Divine persons, honestly 
and ingenuously examine his own mind, and see whether he can 

9 ‘ 


130 Letters to. a Trinitarian.—Letter XIII. 


really think of God out of Christ and yet consider Christ as God; or 
whether he can really think of Christ as God at all, when he thinks 
of the Father as distinct from him. We imagine that this test alone 
faithfully applied would be sufficient to determine the question of the 
truth of Swedenborg’s averments as so frequently cited above.* 

The consideration of the charges of intolerance and bigotry I re- 
serve to another letter. ; 

Yours, &ec. 


LETTER XtiI. 
PRACTICAL RESULTS. 


DEAR SIR, 


As intimated in my last, | am prepared to encounter the objection 
which will scarcely fail to be urged, if not by yourself, at least by 
others ;—to wit, that of uncharitableness, intolerance, and bigotry 
in the system. As the New Church claims to be pre-eminently, a 
dispensation of love—as its doctrines are frequently termed heavenly 
doctrines—as its genius is often avowed to be angelic, which at the 
least implies mild, gentle, benignant—how can such a severe and ex- 
clusive spirit consist with such professions? Are there not multitudes 
of good men who sincerely embrace, some the Trinitarian and some 
the Unitarian dogma? And if they are good will they not be saved ? 
I have hinted a doubt whether you yourself would urge this ob- 
jection, for my impression is, that with you the great question is the 
intrinsic truth of the doctrine advanced, and that when once satisfied 
on that head you are prepared for the most stern and stringent issues 
that may legitimately ensue. Your profound reverence for the divine 
oracles, in all the length and breadth of their genuine purport, 
would rather lead you to exclaim—* Purity before peace—let God be 
true, but every man a liar—let the truth stand though the heavens 
fall.” But this is not the mood of multitudes. There is a certain 
sentiment of soi-disant liberality and charity which frowns upon 
and denounces every thing in the shape of an asserted fundamen- 


* «If this divine truth is not received, that the Lord’s Human is Divine, it necessarily 
hence follows that there is a trine which is to be adored, but not a one, and also that halt 
of the Lord is.to be adored, namely his Divine, but not his Human; for who adores what 
is not divine? And is the Chureh anything where a trine is adored, one separately from 
. the other, or what is the same, where three are equally worshiped? For, although 
three are called one, still the thought distinguishes and makes three, and only the 
discourse of the mouth says one. Let every one weigh this with himself, when he says 
that he acknowledges and believes one God, whether he does not think of three; and 
when he says that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and 
they also distinguished into persons, and distinguished as to offices, Whether he ean think 
that there is one God, except so that three distinct among themselves make one by con- 
cordance, and also by condescension so far as one proceeds from another ; when, there- 
fore, three Gods are adored, where is then the Church? But if the Lord alone be adored, 
in whom there is a perfect trine, and who is in the Father and the Father in Him, as He 
himself says; then there is a Christian church.”—A, C. 4766, 


Practical Results. 131 


tal doctrine of faith. In the system of the New Church we have 
such a doctrine, and that is the doctrine of the Lord, upon which | 
have thus far descanted. We are taught to regard this doctrine as 
vital to salvation, and yet I shall hope to show that notwithstanding 
the rigor of demand on .this score, nothing of undue severity or re- 
volting exclusiveness is, on that account, really chargeable upon the 
system. It will be the height of injustice to impute an intolerant or 
anathematizing spirit to Swedenborg if he gives an adequate reason 
for his sentence, founded in the very nature of things. Let the 
question first be settled whether the principles above stated, respect- 
ing acknowledgement and conjunction, be true, and then let it be 
determined whether he is justly open to the reproach of a bigoted in- 
tolerance. The fact is, the decision of this point is suspended upon 
that of another, viz., whether Swedenborg speaks on this subject in 
his private personal capacity, or as a divinely commissioned messen- 
ger of heaven tomen. If the: latter, then his énunciations are to be 
referred to a higher source than his own spirit, and are merged in 
the dictates of eternal truth. Since, however, we have no hope 
that this question will be entertained by the mass of the Christian 
world, we are happy to be able to rest his vindication on another 
basis, and one of a character so truly philosophical that it can hardly 
fail, when rightly understood, to win back the confidence and esteem 
which may have been chillingly repulsed by the literal assertions 
above adduced. ’ 

A fundamental principle of the New Church theology, as ex- 
pounded by Swedenborg, is that the closest and most indissoluble re- 
lation exists between Goodness and Truth, as there does also between 
Evil and Falsity. Truth in the understanding is the normal and 
legitimate product of goodness in the will (voluntas), which with 
Swedenborg is but another name for love or affection, as a man wills 
what he loves. The voluntary principle is accordingly thus distin- 
guished from the intellectual. In saying that truth is the legitimate 
outbirth of good, I do not of course mean to imply that no degree of 
the false is found in conjunction with good, and no degree of truth 
in conjunction with evil. I only mean that when such conjunctions 
do exist they are abnormal and illicit. The true relation is that 
which I have stated above, and we learn, that, in virtue of this re- 
lation, truth and falsity virtually change their nature accordingly as 
they are severally in alliance with good or with evil. Genuine truth 
‘s not truth to him who is in evil, and absolute is only apparent falsity 
to him who is in the good of life. The teachings of Swedenborg on 
this subject are so immeasurably in advance of any thing before 
given to the world, and are so instinct with a wisdom that savors of 
the superhuman, that I shall presume upon your indulgence in offer- 
ing somewhat copious extracts. You will see from these that it is 
confirmation which determines the effect of a man’s intellectual errors 
upon his destiny. 


‘: From the contrariety existing between good and evil, the true and the false, 
it is plain that truth cannot be joined with evil, nor good with the false that 


132 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XIII. 


~ 


originates in evil; for if truth be joined with evil, it is no longer truth, but 
becomes false, inasmuch as it is falsified: and if good be joined with the false 
of evil, it is no longer good, but becomes evil, inasmuch as it is adulterated. 
Nevertheless the false, which bas not its ground in evil, is capable of being 
joined with goodness.”—T. C. R. 398 


“From evil exist all falses; but the falses which are not from evil, in the 
externa! form indeed are falses, but not in the internal; for there are falses 
given with those who are in the good of life, but interiorly in those falses there 
is good, which causes the evil of the false to be removed; hence that false 


before the angels does not appear as the false, but as a species of truth; for: 


the angels look at the interior things of faith and not at its exterior: hence it 
is that every one, of whatsoever religion he be, may be saved, even the Gen- 
tiles who have no truths from the Word, if so be they have respected the good 
of life as an end.”—A. C. 10,648. 


“ All are saved who are in the good of life according to the dogmas of their 
religion which they believed to be truths, although they were not truths, for 
what is false is not imputed to any who lives well according to the dogmas 
of his religion, for the good of life according to religion contains within itself 
the affection of knowing truths, which such persons also learn and receive, 
when they come into another life, for every affection remains with man after 
death, and especially the affection of knowing truths, because this is a spiritual 
affection, and every man when he becomes a Spirit is his own affection; of 
consequence the truths which they desire they imbibe, and so receive them 
deeply in their hearts.’— A. E. 455. 


“From the fact, that appearances of truth may be taken for naked truths, 
and confirmed, have sprung all the heresies which have been and still are in 
the Christian world. Heresies themselves do not condemn men: but confirm- 
ations of the falsities, which are in a heresy, from the Word, and by reason- 
ings from the natural man and an evil life, docondemn,. For every one is born 
into the religion of his country, or of his parents, is initiated into it from in- 
fancy, and afterwards retains it; nor can he extricate himself from its falses, 
both on account of business in the world, aud on account of the weakness of 
the understanding in perceiving truths of that sort; but to live wickedly and 
confirm falses, even to the destruction of genuine truth, this does condemn. 
For he who continues in his religion, and believes in God, and in Christendom, 
believes in the Lord, and esteems the Word holy, and from religion lives ac- 
cording to the commandments of the decalogue, he does not swear to falses; 
wheretore, when he hears truths, and in his own way perceives them, he can 
embrace them, and thus be led out of falses; but not he who had confirmed 
the falses of his religion, for the false, when confirmed, remains, and cannot 
be extirpated; for a false, after confirmation, is as if one had sworn to it, par- 
ticularly if it coheres with the love of himself, or with the pride of his own 
intelligence. 

“T have spoken with Some nthe spiritual world, who lived many ages ago, 
and confirmed themselves in the falses of their own religion, and [ have found 
that they still remained firmly in the same; and I have also spoken with some 
there, who were in the same religion, and thought like those, but had not con- 
firmed its falses in themselves, aud I have found, that, when instructed by the 
angels, they have rejected falses and received truths; and that these were 
saved, but not those. Every man is instructed by the angels after death, and 
those are received who see truths, and from truth, falses: but those only see 
truths who have not confirmed themselves in falses; but those who have con- 
firmed themselves are not willing to see truths: and if they do see, they turn 
themselves back, and then either laugh at them or falsify them; the gennine 
cause is, that confirmation enters the will, and the will is the man himself, 
and it disposes the understanding according to its pleasure; but bare knowlk 


- - 
a —- 


Practical Results. 133 


edge only enters the understanding, and this has not any authority over the 
will, and so is not in man, otherwise than as one who stands in the entry, or 
at the door, and not as yet in the house."—T. C. R. 254, 255. 


As this subject is treated at great length in various parts of Swe- 
denborg’s works, [ will content myself with transcribing the following 
references to the Arcana, which contain an argument in themselves. 


“That there are falses of religion which agree with good, and falses which 
disagree, n. 9259; that falses of religion, if they do not disagree with good, do 
not produce evil except with those who are in evil, n. 8318: that falses of re- 
ligion are not imputed to those who are in good, but to those who are in evil, 
n. 8051, 8149; that truths not genuine, and also falses, may be consociated 


with genuine truths with those who are in good, but not with those who are 
in evil, n. 3470, 3471, 4551, 4552, 7344, 8149, 9298; that falses and truths are 
consociated by appearances from the literal sense of the Word, n. 7344; that 
falses are verified and softened by good, because they are applied and made 
conducive to good, and to the renioval of evil, n. 8148; that the falses of reli- 
gion with those who are in good, are received by the Lord as truths, n. 4736, 
8149 ; that the good whose quality is from a false principle of religion, is ac- 
cepted by the Lord if there be ignorance, and if there be in it innocence and a 
good end, n. 7887; that the truths which are with man are appearances of 
truth and good, tinctured with fallacies, but the Lord nevertheless adapts them 
to genuine truths with the man who liveth in good, n. 2053; that falses in 
which there is good exist with those who are out of the church, and thence 
in ignorance of the truth, also with those within the church where there are 
falses of doctrine, n. 2589-2604, 2861, 2863, 3263, 3778, 4189, 4190, 4197, 6700, 
9256." A: E. 452. 


If all this may be said of the heathen, who have never enjoyed a 
written revelation, how much more inay we suppose it to hold good 
of thousands who have lived and died in Christian lands? You will” 
hardly fail to draw from it, at any rate, the inference, that one may 
be internally in such a state of good, as it concerns the affections, as 
to counterbalance and neutralize the errors of the intellect. Conse-~ 
quently, as this good has a powerful elective affinity for truth, the pre- 
sumption is, that in the other life, if not in this, the good will come 
into conjunction with its appropriate truth, and when this result takes 
place, salvation cannot but ensue; for it is in this that salvation con- 
sists, The imputation of narrowness and denunciation grows legiti- 
mately out of the current views of human destiny in the other life. 
It is taught in all the porular theologies, that man goes at death 
either to heaven or to hell, and that anything like znstruction is super- 
seded by the full blaze of truth flashing at once upon the translated 
spirit, and revealing to it an eternal inheritance of bliss or woe, ac- 
cording to its moral state. From Swedenborg we learn an entirely 
different doctrine of the future, and by his own reyelations are his 
decisions as to character and state to be judged,- He teaches from 
alleged direct illumination, that there is an intermediate state into 
which man enters upon leaving the present world, and that in that 
state a process takes place by which his interior loves and thoughts 
shall be developed in freedom, and. his lot finally determined accord- 
ing as goodness and truth shall predominate over evil and falsity, or 
the reverse. Itisa state in which every spirit is instructed by angels, 


134. Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letter XIII. 


and if he be found to have been interiorly principled in good, the 
truths which he may, from various causes, have refused to receive in 
this life are then seen to be truths, and as such cordially embraced. 
When this result is fully accomplished, the spirit is prepared for hea- 
ven, for the conjunction of good and truth is heaven. “It is not 
permitted,” says Swedenborg, “to any one in heaven nor in hell to 
have a divided mind, that is, to understand one thing and to will 
another; but what he wills he must also understand, and what he 
understands he must also will. Wherefore, in heaven, he who wills 
good must understand truth, and in hell he who wills evil must un- 
derstand what is false; therefore, with the good falses are then re- 
moved and truths are given agreeable and conformable to their good, 
and with the evil truths are removed, and falses are given agreeable 
and conformable to their evil.”—H. § H. 425. ~ 

With these fundamental principles before us, we can see how it is 
that two such apparently conflicting classes of declarations, as are 
represented in the following extracts, may still be perfectly consistent 
with each other. 


“The reason why there is no appropriation of good with those who do not 
acknowledge the Lord is, because for man to acknowledge his God is the first 
principle of religion, and with Christians to acknowledge the Lord is the first 
principle of the Church, for without acknowledgment there is no communica- 
tion given, consequently no faith, thus no love; hence the primary tenet of 
doctrine in the Christian Church is, that without the Lord there is no salvation; 
for whatsoever he calls true and believes, and whatsoever he calls good and 
loves, cannot be called true and good, unless it be from the Divine, thus unless 
it be from the Lord, for that man from himself cannot believe and do good, 
that all truth and all good comes from above, is also a known thing; hence 
it is manifestly evident that they within the Church who do not acknowledge 
the Lord, cannot have faith, thus neither can they have love to God, conse- 
quently neither can they be saved. Hence it may be manifest what is the lot 
of those in the other life, who have been born within the Church, and yet in 
heart deny the Lord, whatsoever may be their quality as to moral life; by 
abundant experience also it hath been given to know, that they cannot be 
saved; which the Lord teaches openly in John, ‘ He that believes in the Son, 
hath eternal life, and he who doth not believe the Son, shall not see life, but 
the anger of God abideth in him, iii. 36."—A. C. 10,112. 


‘With respect to Christians and Gentiles in another life, the case is this; 
Christians, who have acknowledged the truths of faith, and at the same time 
have led a life of good, are accepted before Gentiles, but such Christians at 
this day are few in number; whereas, Gentiles, who have lived in obedience 
and mutual charity, are accepted before Christians who have not led a good 
life. For ali persons throughout the universe are, of the mercy of the Lord, 
accepted and saved, who have lived in good, good itself being that which re- 
ceives truth, and the good of life being the very ground of the seed, that is, 
of truth ; evil of live never receives it ; although they who are in evil should 


be instructed a thousand ways, yea, the instrnetion should be most perfect, 


still the truths of faith with them would enter no further than into the memory, 
and would not penetrate into the affection, which is of the heart; wherefore, 
also, the truths of their memory are dissipated, and become no truths in ano- 
ther life.".—A. C. 2590. 


On the whole, may I not venture to regard the vindication of Swe- 


—— 


Practical Results. _ ; 185 
denborg, on the score of uncharitableness and bigotry as complete? 
Is not this seeming sternness of requisition on the score of faith in the 
Lordas God-man that of truth itself? As anexpositor of the profound- 
est laws of man’s moral nature, could he lower the standard of require- 
ment on this head? At the same time, is it not perfectly obvious 
that the very soul of Christian charity breathes through his teachings, 
which so explicitly lay the foundation of eternal life in the love in- 
stead of the understanding, and declare, that nothing but a falsity 
confirmed by an evil love will put the soul beyond the pale of salva- 
tion? What more could you desire of a teacher professing to derive 
his doctrines from heaven? Could you accord to him your credence, 
if he addressed his fellow-men in any other strain? 

Permit me, in this connexion, to adduce the following pertinent 
paragraph from my “Reply to Dr. Woods,” in which I am endeavor- 
ing to meet this very objection of uncharitableness. 


« But we are pressed by the consequences. If the doctrines held and taught 
by such men as Leighton, Baxter, Scott, Edwards, Brainerd, Payson, and others 
of similar stamp, really involved grand and essential errors, do we not, by the 
very force of the allegation, pronounce sentence upon the men, and cut them 
off from all hope of heaven? Do we not consign them over to a fatal fellow- 
ship with ‘the dragon and his crew? No other inference could well be 
drawn from the above presentation of the subject, and yet no inference could 
be more unjust or injurious to our author and to the true character of his sys- 
tem. Not the least striking among its wonderful features is that of the en- 
larged and catholic charity which it breathes towards every degree of real 
good, with whatever error of understanding it is found in conjunction. The 
fundamental distinction upon which it every where insists between the love or 
life principle, and the mere intellectual conviction of truth, upon the former of 
which, and not upon the latter, salvation is suspended, enables him to recog- 


nize the heirs of eternal life in multitudes of those whose doctrinal belief is 


widely at variance with that which he inculcates. Indeed, I have often been 
deeply and admiringly impressed by the tender solrectude he evinces so to discri- 
minate between the falsities of the head and the heart as to embrace as many as 
possible within the range of the Lord’s saving goodness. Nothing approach- 
ing to a spirit of stern and gloomy denunciation is to be found in his writings. 
It is only when falsities are intelligently confirmed and thence wrought into the 
texture of the life, that he despairs of a happy result. And it would certainly 
be strange if one who assures us that even the well-disposed heathen, who live 
up to the light of their convictions, are saved as far as their goodness and 
truth will admit, should still exclude from the prospect of heaven such men 
as the pious worthies whose names you have recited. That their faith was 
at fault so far as it coincided with the leading popular dogmas upon which I 
have dwelt, is undoubtedly true, but you will see from the extracts which 
follow, that their errors might still consist with a salvable state, though they 
must necessarily detract from that completeness and symmetry of character, 
which results from the fair and full conjunction of Goodness and Truth.”— 
(P. 165.) 


As then our venerated author has so abundantly disclosed the 
grounds of his averments on this head, and referred his decisions, not 
to arbitrary enactment, but to the intrinsic necessity of things, founded 
upon the laws of being, it is to be hoped that he may stand acquitted 
of the charge of undue severity, or harshness of judgment, in respect 
to the moral state of those who fail to receive the truth as by him 


- 


* 
136 — - Letters to @ Trinitarian.—Letter XII. 


announced. In fact, the real question is not whether he is severe or 
mild, but whether he is true or false. If his grand positions relative 
to the genuine doctrine of the Lord, and to the interior constitution 
of man’s nature, be sound—if he has clearly evinced that there is an 
absolute truth in respect to the former which must, be really respond- 
ed to by the dominant state of the latter—then I do not perceive that 
any solid basis exists for the disparaging imputations which many 
may be prompted to cast upon him on this account. He does indeed 
insist upon a cordial acknowledgment of what he clearly teaches to 
be the paramount truth of heaven and the universe, in order to re- 
ceiving the benefit of that truth in our own soul. And is he not war- 
ranted in thus teaching? If our Lord himself declares that eternal 
life is suspended on the condition of peLievine in Him, must not that 
belief be a belief of the truth respecting his nature and character ? 
As this salvation consists essentially in conjunction with the Divine 
Being, and this conjunction demands acknowledgment, can any other 
acknowledgment avail than the acknowledgment of that which is 
true in itself? Will the acknowledgment of a false or unreal God be 
attended with the same effect? In a word, is there not the most am- 
ple evidence of the soundness of Swedenborg’s positions on this head? 
And have we any sufficient reasons for repudiating his statement, 
that “ hereafter no one can come from Christians into Heaven, unless 
he believes in the Lord God, the Saviour, and goes to him alone?” 
If this sounds a note abhorrent to Unitarian ears, let them set over 
against it all the force of the argument hitherto adduced in its sup- 
port, and let them also give its due weight to the following paragraph 
which protests with equal emphasis against the leading error of the 
Trinitarians, while it lays at the same time a foundation of hope for 
both Trinitarian and Unitarian who come within the scope of its pro- 
visions. 


“Tt is necessary to know, first, who is the God of heaven, since all other 
things depend on this. 4n the universal heaven, no other is acknowledged 
as the God of heaven but the Lord (i. e.the Lord Jesus Christ). Itis three 
said, as he Himself taught, that ‘He is one with the Father;” that “the Fa- 
ther is in Him, and He in the Father;” and that “ whosoever seeth Him seeth 
the Father ;” and that “every thing which is holy proceedeth from Him.” I 
have frequently conversed with the angels on this subject, and they constant- 
ly said, that they cannot in heaven distinguish the Divine into three, because 
they know.and perceive that the Divine is One, and that it is One in the Lord. 
They said also that they of the Church who come from the world, and have 
entertained an idea of three Divine persons, cannot be admitted into heaven. 
because their thought wanders from one to another, and it is not allowable 
there to think of three, and to confess One, because every one in heaven speaks 
from thought. Speech there is cogitative speech, or thought speaking ; where- 
fore they in the world who have distinguished the Divine into three, and have 
conceived a separate idea of each, and have not made and concentrated it 
into one in the Lord, cannot be received ; for in heaven there is a communica- 
tion of the thoughts of all, wherefore if any one should come thither thinking 
of three and confessing one, he would be immediately discovered and re- 


jected. It is however to be noted, that all those who have not separated truth 


from good, or faith from love, when instructed in the other life, receive the 
heavenly idea concerning the Lord, namely, that He is the God of the uni- 


Practical Results. 137 


verse ; but it is otherwise with those who have separated faith from life, that 


is, Who have not lived according to the precepts one true faith. *—H.§ H.2. 5 | 


But I forbear further enlargement. The grand purpose w ich I had 
in view in entering upon the present series of Letters, is now accom- 
plished. Under the most positive and abiding conviction that the 
prevalent views of Christendom on the sublime and central doctrine 
of the rrinrry In uniTy are radically erroneous, and therefore morally 
pernicious, I have aimed to set forth, with all the distinctness in my 
power, that form of the doctrine which we find so luminously devel- 
oped in the theology of the New Church. It is this doctrine mainly 
which gives character to that Church, and in which we find, in fact, 
the chief testimony to its heavenly origin. We can appeal to no 
higher proof of the Divine genius of this dispensation than the fact, 
that it bears in its bosom a doctrine so immeasurably in advance of 
anything ever delivered in the schools of theology—so conformed to 
Scripture, so consonant with reason—and, in a word, so lucent with the 
light which beams from the celestial sphere. I am, indeed, aware 
that it is very easy to turn aside the point. of the whole preceding 
train of reasoning, by assuming to one’s self, that it is a system rest- 
ing solely upon the authority or the bare zpse dixtt of a man who had 
given himself up to the enthusiastic conceit of possessing a divine 
illumination, by virtue of which all sacred mysteries were laid open 
tohim. But Ido not perceive how such a verdict can proceed from 
any candid mind after perusing the long chain of extracts embodied 
in the preceding pages. I should be at a loss upon which one of the 
whole series of paragraphs to fix as most likely to come under the 


imputation of incoherence, irrationality, or phantasy. Is there any 


one of them which might not have come from the most sedate and 
sober mind that ever pronounced itself upon theological themes? To 
take, for instance, the following, with which] close the list :— 


“They who come at this day into the other life from the Christian church 


* « They who are truly men of the Church, that is, who are in love to the Lord, and in 
charity towards their neighbor, know and acknowledge a Trine, but still they humble 
themselves before the Lord, and adore him alone, inasmuch as they know, that there is 
no access to the essential Divine, which is called the Father, but by the Son, and that all 
the holy, which is of the Holy Ghost, proceeds from Him; and when they are in this 
idea, they adore no other than Him, by whom and from whom are all things; conse- 
quently they adore One, nor do they divide their ideas upon three, as is the case with 
many Within the Church, and as may appear from many in another life, even from the 
learned, who in the life of the body have imagined themselves to possess more than others 
the arcana of faith. These being explored in respect to the idea they have had of one 
God, whether there be three uncreate, three infinite, three eternal, three omnipotent, and 
three Lords, it was manifestly perceived that they had an idea of three (for in another life 
there is given a communication of ideas), when yet it is expressly said in the Creed, that 
there are not three uncreate, nor three infinite, nor three eternal, nor three omnipotent, 
nor three Lords, but One, as is really the case ; thus they confessed, that with the mouth 
they indeed asserted God to be One, but still they thought, and some of them believed in 
three, whom they could in idea separate, but not join together; the reason whereof is, 
because all arcana, even the deepest, are attended with some idea, for without an idea 
nothing can have place in the thoughts, or even be retained in the memory. Hence in 
another life it is manifest, as in open day, what kind of thought, and faith thence, every 
one has formed to himself concerning one God.” —A. C. 2329. 


-* 


* 


- 
& 
138 Letters to a Trinitarian.—Letier XIII. 


almost all have an idea concerning the Lord as concerning another man, not 
only separate from the Divine, although they also adjoin the Divine to Him, 


~ but also separate from Jehovah, and what is more, separate also from the holy 


which proceeds from Him: they say indeed one God, but still they think three, 
and actually divide the Divine among three, for they distinguish into persons, 
and call each God, and attribute to each a distinct proprium ; hence it is said 
of Christians in the other life, that they worship three Gods, because they 


‘think three, howsoever they say one. But they who have been Gentiles, and 


converted to Christianity, in the other life adore the Lord alone ; and this by rea- 
son that they believed that it could not be otherwise than that the supreme God 
manifested himself on earth as a man, and that the supreme God is a divine 
man, and that if they had not such an idea of the supreme God, they could 
not have any idea, thus neither could they think about God, consequently they 
could not know him, and still less love him.”—A,. C. 5256 


Is there anything in this which savors of dementation? You may 
say, perhaps, that this character is to be predicated of his claim to a 
knowledge of the state of things in the other life. The doctrine, it 
may be said, may consist with a sound state of mind, but the disclo- 
sures bespeak hallucination. But we find the evidence of the truth 
of the disclosures in the character of the doctrines, which could never 
have been the product of a disordered intellect. It is the amazing 
intuition into the truths pertaining to the present life, so vastly tran- 
scending the reach of the highest unassisted genius, that assures us 
of his reliability in unfolding the truths that respect the life to come. 
They are all founded upon psychological laws of which we can judge 
from the testimony of consciousness. And as to the claim of converse 
with the spirits of the departed, it rests upon an asserted intromission 
into the world of their residence, which we understand as merely an 
opening of the spiritual senses, such as was accorded to the prophets 
and holy men of old, and which involves nothing incredible to one 
who admits the preternatural illapse that came upon their minds, 
and enabled them to look through the curtain of flesh made, for the 
time, transparent. 

But on this point I do not, at present, propose to construct a plea. 
It is not so much Swedenborg himself, as it is the intrinsic truth of 
his teachings that stands before the bar of judgment. Upon this you 
are as competent to decide as upon the propoundings of any other 
system which appeals to Scripture and reason. If your verdict is 
adverse, it will be for reasons which stand definitely before your own 
mind, and which you will be able, with equal explicitness, to assign 
for the satisfaction, or, at least, the consideration, of others. Such 
reasons | have a great curiosity to see “set forth in order,” especially 
by such an “excellent Theophilus,” as I have always been happy to 
recognize in yourself. 

Yours, &c. 


THE END. 


GAYLORD 


DATE DUE 


il 


PRINTEOINU.S.A. 


J 


Pats 


fae 
Reet gvste ss) 
sae ae 


9668 


1 1012 01020 


il) 


ra 
& 
cs 
£ 
2 
ol 
. 
a 
4 
a 
7) 
' 
a 
= 
cs 
= 
E 
2 
7) 
® 
LS 
a 
2 
fo} 
ov 
= 
e 
= 
Cc 
S 
— 
° 
c 
= 
a 


IAIN 


is 


en 6 


ae 


6 


are 


act | 


aoe 


Sata 


PA 


‘ore 
a4 


eg) 


@ean 
seu .22 
Ste ees 
So s0s” 
~ + 

oS asec 

= 


apm en bes 


mc itz 
ve 
aone 


5 


Seen 


oot. 


a ee 
some srr 


z 
= ses @raik 4 


P2248 +4 
ne 
PS os 
ge 


: Vnoee cova etet 
8attc i¢et Bot 5" 
a 


aaaat > Bs 


vs 
3 
§ R{ECer oe 


cS 


Reetan yates 
peceecit umenoal 


pte 


deny ner ty 
Maki eas ae 
MG ante @. wes 9645 


Pacreh eet. 


